Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

The Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PETITION (TIED HOUSES, MALDON)

Mr. Driberg: I beg leave to present a Petition signed by a number of electors in the ancient Borough of Maldon, Essex. This Petition shows that from time immemorial the citizens of Maldon have been accustomed in certain of their inns and public houses to purchase beer and other liquors obtained from the various breweries and other manufactories whose products they prefer; that this freedom of choice of beverage is not only a right greatly valued for its own sake by the Petitioners but also a source of profit to the borough, in that it has attracted thereto visitors in search of their favourite brews; that in recent years this freedom of choice has been impaired by restrictive arrangements devised in the interest of brewers seeking to establish their private monopolies; that, of the two remaining free inns within the borough, one, the King's Head Hotel, has been purchased in recent weeks by Messrs. Mann, Cross-man and Paulin, brewers, on terms which will restrict and infringe still further this ancient freedom; and that the growth of the system of tied houses is a grievous burden to the people of the Borough of Maldon and to those who commonly resort thither from other parts of the county of Essex and elsewhere. The Petition ends with the customary prayer:
Wherefore, your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House shall as soon as may be convenient approve legislation designed to terminate such restrictive practices and to

set free all inns and public houses in Maldon and elsewhere. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Depot, Kintore (Stores)

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Air the nature and value of the stores held at the Royal Air Force depot at Kintore, Aberdeenshire; and the purpose for which this establishment is maintained.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): This depot holds about £60,000 worth of works plant, stores and equipment, including accessories, spares and materials which are required for the maintenance of airfields and domestic accommodation at R.A.F. stations north of the Forth.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister quite sure that there is no weevil-infested barley there belonging to the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Spence: Is the Minister sure that all the stores held are necessary for maintenance, and could not he release those of a nature connected with building, such as baths, electric wire and fixtures, in order to assist our housing programme?

Mr. de Freitas: I will certainly look into that point.

Air Traffic Control

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give definite instructions to Royal Air Force training planes that they are not to carry out exercises on routes likely to be traversed at the same time by civil aircraft.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will take steps to ensure that flight plans are submitted by Royal Air Force aircraft including training aircraft when they are likely to approach, or cross, the predetermined lanes of flight of any civil aircraft.

Mr. de Freitas: It would be quite impracticable to require Royal Air Force


aircraft to avoid civil air routes in this country or even to require that flight plans should be submitted in all cases where they are likely to approach or cross these routes. There are over 1,000 Royal Air Force air movements a day, and there are few parts of the country which are not at times crossed by civil aircraft. However, neither the Air Ministry nor the Ministry of Civil Aviation is altogether satisfied with the present air traffic control and we are trying to improve the arrangements to meet the requirements of both military and civil aircraft.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of public disquiet about the recent accident in which 14 people en route to Glasgow lost their lives, and pending inquiry will he give some instruction to the R.A.F. to avoid this route?

Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir. The fact that there was a collision in good visibility proves that at least one crew were not keeping a good look-out, but it does nothing to apportion blame.

Royal Observer Corps (Age Limit)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the sense of frustration caused by present arrangements, he will consider reducing the age limit for recruitment of reservists into the Royal Observer Corps and exempting ex-members of the corps from any age restriction.

Mr. de Freitas: My right hon. Friend is considering reducing the lower age limit, but there are clearly difficulties about enrolling in the Corps men who might have to leave it in wartime. Higher upper age limits are already in force for ex-members of the Corps, so that they can be enrolled to within two years of the retiring age. There is no sign of any frustration.

Training

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the importance of training in the Royal Air Force, he will recommend that an additional member of the Air Council should be appointed for training.

Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the very considerable commitments ahead of the Royal Air Force, both in regard to Reservists and Regulars, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that training is, sufficiently represented in the higher circles of the Air Ministry?

Mr. de Freitas: My right hon. Friend considers that the present arrangement is satisfactory. It was the last wartime Air Member for Training who recommended that his functions should be divided between the Chief of the Air Staff and the Air Member for Technical Services, but my right hon. Friend is always open to argument and persuasion on this point.

Inquiry Witness (Delayed Release)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Air what were the reasons for the delay in carrying out the court of inquiry at Royal Air Force Kidlington Headquarters, 42nd Group, which was originally convened on 13th August, 1948, but not completed until mid-November; and at what date his Department gave authority for Pilot Officer R. R. Williams, who was due for release on 11th August, to be retained in the Service during this time.

Mr. de Freitas: I regret that the proceedings of this court of inquiry should have been protracted. The delay was due to changes in presidency and the need to make a full investigation into the facts. In a letter dated 16th July, 1948, my Department authorised the release of Pilot Officer Williams on 9th August, 1948, subject to the normal proviso under which release may be delayed where an officer or airman is required to give evidence before a court martial or a court of inquiry. He was retained until he had completed his evidence before the court of inquiry in question and two others with which he was concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Cyprus—Haifa Service

Mr. Erroll: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what arrangements he is making for a British air service to Israel.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Arrangements have been.


made for a British air service between Cyprus and Haifa, and the establishment of other services is under consideration.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say when this service will commence, by which Corporation it will be run and how frequently?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. 7th March, Cyprus Airways, and twice weekly, on Mondays and Fridays.

Mr. Erroll: Is Cyprus Airways owned by either of the Airways Corporations operating in that field?

Mr. Lindgren: British European Airways have a holding of 44 per cent.

B.O.A.C. Base, Filton

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, whether the move of the maintenance base from Dorval to Filton has now been completed; whether any British Overseas Airways Corporation aircraft are now maintained at Dorval and what saving per annum in maintenance costs will be achieved by the complete change over.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir; no British Overseas Airways Corporation aircraft are now maintained at Dorval. With regard to the last part of the Question, I am informed that in the first year maintenance costs will, in fact, be somewhat higher as a result of the move to Filton.

Colonel Hutchison: Can the hon. Gentleman give a little more information than that? Surely, the hope was that by moving to Filton maintenance costs would be reduced?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. The move from Dorval to Filton was to save dollar expenditure and not maintenance costs. The same maintenance costs will still be there, and, in addition, the cost of the move will have to be spread over a period of three years. That cost is about £500,000.

Mr. William Shepherd: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many staff he has at Dorval and when the next move to the proper place at Heathrow is to take place?

Mr. Lindgren: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Inter-Zonal Traffic

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amount of goods from the British zone of Germany are being sent to the Russian zone by sea; and why this traffic is still permitted while road traffic has been stopped.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bevin): There is no legitimate sea-trade between the British and Soviet zones. This has been stopped since July, 1948. There is, however, some smuggling, which, of course, we try to prevent, and which I do not believe to be considerable.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that there is no traffic at all going by sea? While everyone knows that the land traffic has been stopped, my Question deals with sea traffic. Is it not universally understood that there was considerable traffic by sea, and is that now being definitely denied?

Mr. Bevin: I have answered that there is no legitimate sea trade between the British and Soviet zones.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the illegitimate trade being stopped?

Mr. Bevin: I have not stopped all the illegitimate trade. I cannot close down private enterprise completely.

Major Lloyd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the real grievance is not that this traffic goes to the Soviet zone, which nobody has suspected, but that it is going to Russia?

Mr. Bevin: That is not in the Question. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes his Question more accurate next time, I will give him the right answer.

Air Lift, Berlin (Cigars)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many cigars have been sent by air lift to Berlin since 1st February; and for whom were they destined.

Mr. Bevin: Since 1st February, the following cigars have arrived in Berlin by air lift for distribution on ration to the German population of the Western sectors: by British aircraft, 695,000; by United States aircraft, 5,197,000. No cigars were flown in for British personnel during that period.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Foreign Secretary also tell us how many personnel were sent with the cigars to stop pilfering on the way, and whether it would not be better to confine the air lift to essentials?

Mr. Bevin: When people are in a siege, as Berlin has been all this time, they find that a smoke is a relaxation.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the people of this country are fortunate enough to be able to import 5 million cigars a year?

Mr. Bevin: No, but we do smoke cigarettes, and the Germans smoke cigars.

Mr. Nally: Will my right hon. Friend use the enormous influence which he possesses in order to ensure that a proper and adequate supply of cigars is sent to any area in which there is likely to be a by-election in order to ensure the presence of the Leader of the Opposition?

Soviet Repatriation Mission

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the present strength, all ranks, of the Russian Repatriation Mission now operating in the British zone of Germany; and how many Russian citizens have been voluntarily repatriated by it during the past 12 months.

Mr. Bevin: The strength of the Soviet Repatriation Mission in the British zone of Germany is 21 officers and eight other ranks. In the period from 1st February, 1948, to 31st January, 1949, 103 Soviet citizens were repatriated, together with 692 inhabitants of the former Baltic States, and four Polish Ukrainians.

Mr. Maclean: Could the right hon. Gentleman repeat the number of Soviet citizens repatriated?

Mr. Bevin: One hundred and three Soviet citizens.

Mr. Maclean: In view of the fact that it is clear that this Mission no longer serves any useful purpose, will the right hon. Gentleman invite the Soviet Government to withdraw it?

Mr. Bevin: I have not done that, because there are other Missions in other territories for other purposes, including war graves, and I have not entered into the question of reprisals in one way or another yet.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend say that, if he did come to the conclusion that this Repatriation Mission ought to return, he would endeavour to secure its return by normal diplomatic methods, and not by making war on individuals, as was done in the U.S. zone?

Mr. Bevin: I think diplomatic steps were taken, and that it was when they refused to obey that these other steps were taken.

Printed Matter (Restrictions)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why books or literature even of a non-political character including editions of Goethe and music by Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are prohibited in the British zone of Germany if published in Leipzig; and, in view of the need of this class of literature and the fact that literature published in the British zone can be and is delivered in the Russian zone, whether steps will be taken to remove the ban so far as non-political literature and publications are concerned.

Mr. Bevin: Under an order of last January, the Military Government is in fact empowered to authorise the importation of printed matter from the Soviet zone, and any distributor wishing to import a particular publication may apply to the Regional Commissioner for permission.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that permission has been refused in such instances, and could he not make special inquiries to see whether literature of this kind, which is entirely non-political, could not be made available to the British zone?

Mr. Bevin: I understand that the ban does not apply to the cases referred to.

Mr. Sorensen: If I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it does, will he make inquiries?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, I will.

Mr. John Foster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very often a question of breach of copyright between the Soviet zone and the British zone, and that, as works have sometimes been pirated, permission is refused on that ground?

Mr. Bevin: I would like to have notice of that; I am not aware of it.

Constitution (Military Governors' Memorandum)

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that the provisions of the memorandum of the military governors on the constitution for a West German Government will allow sufficient powers to be allocated to the Federal Government to enable it to participate in European economic planning.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Albu: Would my right hon. Friend draw the attention of his American colleagues to the fact that there is a possible divergence of policy between their representatives in Paris and those in Frankfurt and Bonn?

Mr. Bevin: I would like to have notice of that question, and to know what the discrepancy is.

KOREA (BRITISH COUNCIL)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the work of the British Council in Korea.

Mr. Bevin: Up to the present, the British Council have undertaken no work in Korea. The question of their doing so is under consideration.

Mr. Maclean: In view of the anxiety of the Korean people to resume their cultural connections with this country and the political importance of enabling them to do so, will the right hon. Gentleman

do what he can to remedy this matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Bevin: I am trying to do that, but there is a limitation on British Council expenditure, and I must spread it out in the best way I can.

EGYPT (PASSPORTS)

Mr. John Foster: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make representations to the Government of Egypt that they should desist from the practice, particulars of which have been sent to him, of discriminating against British subjects of the Jewish religion by removing their passports or detaining them on overnight stops in Egyptian territory.

Mr. Bevin: As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

To avoid inconvenience to passengers arriving by air in Egypt with direct transit visas, the Egyptian authorities have instituted a practice whereby the passports of these persons are collected at the airport on their arrival and returned to them on their departure. Passengers who object to giving up their passports while they are being examined and stamped by the Passport Control authorities may wait until the formalities have been completed and take their passports with them, but as this may involve their waiting two or three hours owing to the large number of travellers using the airport, most of them prefer to follow this procedure. One of the current conditions on which travellers to Egypt are granted a direct transit visa is that they do not leave the airport, but when the aircraft stops overnight passengers spend the night at an approved hotel. As the hon. Member will appreciate, there is no discrimination in this procedure against passengers of Jewish religion.

The Egyptian authorities have taken certain security precautions to prevent Jewish passengers leaving ships passing through the Suez Canal. In some cases, for example, the passports of Jewish passengers have been collected by the Egyptian police during the passage of the ship through the Suez Canal. The only instances of which I am aware of British


subjects of Jewish race being inconvenienced by this procedure are those which have been brought to my attention by the hon. Member; these cases have already been the subject of correspondence between my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, and the hon. Member. In view of this and of the circumstances obtaining in the Middle East I do not feel justified in protesting to the Egyptian Government against this practice. If, of course, cases of serious inconvenience are brought to my attention without delay, I shall certainly represent the matter to the competent Egyptian authorities.

ANGLO-ISRAELI FINANCIAL TALKS

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the Anglo-Israeli financial talks are expected to begin; and what is the reason for their delay.

Mr. Bevin: No date for such talks has yet been suggested by either Government and there has consequently been no delay. The many economic and financial problems requiring discussion with the Government of Israel are under active study by His Majesty's Government.

Dr. Segal: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the State of Israel is rapidly becoming a hard currency area, and that the only result of all these delays in the Middle East will be a loss to Britain of many millions of pounds in hard currency markets?

Mr. Bevin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this financial business is not one sided.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Business and Tourist Visits

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to be able to announce a relaxation in the method whereby business men and tourists can quickly obtain entry permits to Malta in London instead of in Malta which at present involves delay.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Business men from the United Kingdom may now enter Malta without entry permits for a visit

not exceeding two months if they hold a British passport and produce on arrival a letter from a Chamber of Commerce in the United Kingdom sponsoring their visit. In addition British subjects from the United Kingdom who are bona fide tourists may enter the island without entry permits for a stay not exceeding two months if they hold return tickets or a travel voucher which cannot be converted into cash at Malta and enables the holder to book a return passage.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this will be received with great satisfaction by the Government of Malta in their efforts to develop the economics of the island?

University Council (Proceedings)

Mr. Drayson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Malta, in his capacity as Chancellor of Malta University, has yet carried out his threat to expel any member of the University Council who gave information about the proceedings of the Council meeting on 17th August, 1948.

Mr. Creech Jones: The suggestion that the Governor of Malta either in his capacity as Chancellor of the Royal University or otherwise made any threat against members of the University Council or staff of the University, or behaved in any way improperly, is completely untrue.

Mr. Drayson: Is the Minister aware that this matter was very fully reported in the Malta newspaper, and does he not consider that here is a case for recalling the Governor as being one of the boys who has failed in his job?

Mr. Creech Jones: I utterly repudiate the insinuation in the supplementary question. The Governor has discharged his work with great competence and devotion, and he has a fine record of work to his credit.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Statutory Instrument (Correction)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a slip was issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office


merely to correct in S.I., 1949, No. 138, the spelling of a word, where no ambiguity could arise; and what was the cost incurred.

Mr. Creech Jones: It is desirable that Statutory Instruments should be correct. The cost was 33s.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the correction slip does not form part of the instrument, and has no effect whatsoever?

Regional Development Corporations

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the names of members of the regional colonial development corporations and regional advisers, so far appointed, with their relevant experience.

Mr. Creech Jones: This is a matter for the Colonial Development Corporation and I understand that the Corporation have already informed my hon. Friend of the names of those appointments which have so far been publicly announced.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last announcement on this matter was made in August last year? Since then a large number of appointments have been made, and is there any reason why the names of those gentlemen should not be made public before the annual Report of the Corporation?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is very probable that they will be included in the annual Report of the Corporation, but the names are published locally.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Electrical Development

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made regarding the development of hydro-electricity in Nigeria; if the engineer who was appointed at the end of 1947 to undertake hydro-electric surveys, but left Nigeria after three months, has since returned to complete the surveys; and how much of the proposed expenditure of about £1,500,000 on electrical development under the Ten-Year Plan has actually been expended.

Mr. Creech Jones: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on 2nd March to my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes). The officer referred to returned to Nigeria last July to make further investigations. It is estimated that expenditure under the Ten-Year Plan to the end of the current financial year will amount to nearly £300,000.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a fairly widespread feeling that development in Nigeria in this particular regard is just a little too slow, and will he take steps to speed it up?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, we are doing all we can to speed it up, but it is retarded by the limitation on the number of staff available and equipment.

Education

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent educational advance has taken place during the last three years in the Northern Region of Nigeria; approximately how many boys and girls, respectively, are now receiving primary and secondary education in that region; and what steps have been taken to encourage university education for suitable students.

Mr. Creech Jones: There has been a steady increase in the number of schools, and of children under instruction, and a determined effort is being made to increase the pace of advance. Today about 54,000 boys and 17,000 girls are receiving primary and secondary education in this Region. Under a new scheme which greatly increases the number of scholarships for higher educational training, the Nigerian Government are giving special consideration to the claims of candidates from the North.

Mr. Sorensen: Would my right hon. Friend say whether this denotes a very substantial increase on three years ago? Could he also give some idea of the nature of the assistance now being given towards encouraging university education and whether it applies to women as well as to men?

Mr. Creech Jones: It applies to women as well as to men, but of course, there are religious difficulties in the Northern


Territories. The figures which I am prepared to supply for the information of my hon. Friend show a very considerable increase over the last few years.

Dr. Segal: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of these figures are children who are receiving education in private schools? Is he aware of the very unsatisfactory nature of this education given under private auspices?

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not know what private schools there are. There are the Koranic schools; figures for the Koranic schools are not included in the figures which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


1.
Number of children receiving primary education in 1937
20,000



Number of children receiving primary education in 1947
70,000


2.
Number of children receiving secondary education in 1937
65



Number of children receiving secondary education in 1947
251


3.
Number of primary schools in 1937
500



Number of primary schools in 1947
over




1,100


4.
Number of secondary schools in 1937
1



Number of secondary schools in 1947
3


5.
Number of teacher training institutions in 1937
4



Number of teacher training institutions in 1947
18


6.
In the forthcoming financial year the Northern Region proposes to spend £1,375,000 on education out of a total Budget of £4,200,000.

Co-operative Movement

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to encourage the further expansion of the Co-operative movement in Nigeria; and whether descriptive and explanatory literature in the vernacular has been issued.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Nigerian Government are doing everything in their power to encourage and assist the development of the Co-operative movement. From 1946 to the end of 1948 the number of societies rose from 580 to 956. Pamphlets in Yoruba have been issued. Rules and by-laws are translated into the vernacular for each society.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that really mean that a certain amount of descriptive literature in the vernacular is now in circulation or does it merely mean that

permission to circulate it has been granted?

Mr. Creech Jones: In some of the vernacular, yes, but there is still a great deal of leeway to make up.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that much more literature in the vernacular is circulated to the Nigerian people?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, certainly.

Leprosy

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the incidence of new cases of leprosy in Nigeria during each of the last three years.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am asking the Governor how far this information is available, and will communicate with my hon. Friend when his reply is received.

Mr. Sorensen: Can my right hon. Friend say whether all cases of leprosy have to be registered, or whether that is permissive?

Mr. Creech Jones: I should want notice of that question.

SEYCHELLES (MR. COLLETT)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Attorney-General of the Seychelles has been accused by the Chief Justice of making a false statement in court; and what steps are being taken to deal with this position.

Mr. Creech Jones: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to certain remarks by the Chief Justice in a case in which the former Acting Attorney General was giving evidence. I am now studying a copy of the judgment in his case, which I have received from the Governor.

Mr. Reid: In view of the scathing remarks made by the Chief Justice, how did this man come to be nominated to the Executive Legislative Council?

Mr. Creech Jones: That, of course, is in the discretion of the Governor, but it has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that this man, Mr. Collett, has been called a perjurer and a liar, and a few other things of that sort by the Chief Justice, will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to remove him from his office in view of the fact that he gave me a categorical assurance that this man would not be re-employed in the Colonial service?

Mr. Creech Jones: This man has no official position in the Seychelles Government, and I cannot pass judgment on the statement of the Chief Justice until I have studied a copy of the judgment.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that in nominations of this kind to the Executive Council, the authority of the Secretary of State for the Colonies is always sought?

Mr. Creech Jones: This particular case is not a matter within my discretion; it is a matter for the Governor.

Mr. Stanley: With the right hon. Gentleman's authority not sought?

Mr. Creech Jones: No.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that a copy of this judgment reached the Colonial Office at least three weeks ago—I have had a copy that length of time—and can the right hon. Gentleman say how much longer he is going to take before he gives some sort of adjudication on the matter?

Mr. Creech Jones: It may be that the hon. Member did see the judgment three weeks ago, but it was only brought to me during last week.

BRITISH GUIANA (AIR SURVEY)

Sir Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent he is carrying out aeronautical survey work in British Guiana at the present time.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Director of Colonial Surveys has gone to British Guiana to discuss arrangements for carrying out this work.

Sir P. Macdonald: As there is a unit there now engaged on survey work, can the right hon. Gentleman say why they should not be made use of instead of

applying to another nation or to other people to carry out this survey?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think this is in proper order. My own director has actually gone there because the work is not so simple—it is rather complicated—and we want all the technical advice that we can possibly get in respect of these big development plans now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

Tomato Canning

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the proposal to set up a State tomato canning factory in Jamaica.

Mr. Creech Jones: There is no proposal to set up a State tomato canning factory in Jamaica.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that this has been reported both in the local and the Jamaican Press, would it not be advisable in the circumstances if some denial were made?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have just made a statement.

Primary Producers (Resolution)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the resolution, a copy of which has been sent to him, agreed to unanimously by the Central Committee of Primary Producers of Jamaica asking for the incorporation of bulk purchase as a permanent feature of empire economic policy; what is his policy in this respect; and whether he has consulted his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food in relation to it.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. I have considered this resolution. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement to the House on the policy of His Majesty's Government on 17th September last. That statement remains the policy of the Government.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since there has been a consistent effort on the part of the Conservative Press of this country to suppress the demand being made by the people of Jamaica and the West Indies


in this respect, will my right hon. Friend undertake to circulate this resolution among Members of the Front Opposition Bench so they may be educated in the elementary facts about the British Empire?

Mr. Turton: Arising out of the original reply, has the Secretary of State given a reply saying he will go in for a 10-year contract for sugar, as the Jamaican growers want?

Mr. Creech Jones: As the hon. Member is aware, the contract is until 1952. The future of the contract is a matter which is receiving attention both from the Ministry of Food and myself.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the Secretary of State for the Colonies commend to the attention of hon. Members opposite the admirable letter on this subject which appeared in "The Times" today under the signature of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby)?

Social Welfare Scheme

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has recently been taken to replace Jamaica Welfare, Limited, by a direct government agency; and whether he is prepared to make a statement.

Mr. Creech Jones: Legislation providing for the establishment of the Jamaica Social Welfare Commission on 1st April, 1949, is now in its final stages. This development is based on proposals made by Jamaica Welfare, Limited, for the creation of a statutory body to take over the work of the Company. A sum of £15,000 is being included in the 1949–50 draft Estimates to continue the present work while the Commission are drawing up plans and estimates: on their receipt the Jamaica Government will consider to what extent assistance should be sought from Colonial Development and Welfare funds. Funds have been provisionally allocated in the Jamaica 10-year development plan.

Mr. Skinnard: While recognising the excellent work done by the organisation known as Jamaica Welfare, Limited, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will ensure that any successor body shall proceed on similar lines?

Mr. Creech Jones: This scheme is based on the representations of Jamaica Welfare, Limited.

LEEWARD ISLANDS (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a complete statement of his recent discussions with the Governor of the Leeward Islands.

Mr. Creech Jones: On 16th January, I informed the Governor by telegram that I was becoming concerned over the situation in the Leeward Islands, and that I thought it might be necessary for him to come to London for personal discussion. On 17th January I asked him to come over as soon as possible, and he left Antigua on 31st January, arriving in London on 12th February. I had for some time been anxious lest the sugar cropping season, due to start last month, should be attended by further strikes such as took place in 1948 and inflicted very serious losses on all concerned in the industry and on the general economy of Antigua and St. Christopher-Nevis, the two Presidencies immediately concerned. Arbitration in St. Kitts, agreed by both parties after last year's strike, upon certain outstanding points had not been completed in January last, and I was disturbed by the absence of adequate reports upon the industrial situation and upon various other important aspects of the administration. These included the presentation of the Colony's ten-year development plan, which has been awaited for some time, and the problem of constitutional reform.
These matters have been fully discussed with the Governor during his visit, and I have indicated to him my views upon the policy to be pursued and the measures to be taken to promote public confidence in the administration. Lord Baldwin is shortly returning to resume his duties as Governor. The ten-year plan has now been forwarded by the Acting Governor, and is under examination in the Colonial Office. The findings of the arbitrator in the matters referred to him after the St. Kitts strike last year have been promulgated in the Presidency. My views on the question of the constitution have been communicated to the Acting Governor by despatch and will shortly be


published. Lord Baldwin has expressed to me his unqualified regret at the nature of statements attributed to him in certain organs of the Press after his arrival in this country.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of a Colonial Governor who is still serving making such statements as, "You see what happens if I do not go back?" "The scandalous rush with which I was recalled" scarcely fits in with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said and with the fact that Lord Baldwin was forced to live in Guadeloupe; and as the honour of the Colonial Service is involved, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would have tolerated that from a Governor who was not appointed for political reasons?

Mr. Creech Jones: First of all, there is no clear evidence that these statements were made by Lord Baldwin; indeed, Lord Baldwin has repudiated those statements which have appeared in the Press in regard to his administration.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that progressive people throughout the world will be pleased to know that my noble Friend is returning to the Leeward Islands, and will he give an assurance that there are no strings attached to his return?

Mr. Creech Jones: I really do not understand what that question means.

Mr. Stanley: In view of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, why did he have to make such a mystery about this when it was raised in the House three weeks ago? Has not his handling of the situation only given rise to the most unfortunate impression that in fact he wanted to get rid of Lord Baldwin and that he has not dared to do so?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think I have made no mystery whatsoever in regard to Lord Baldwin's coming to this country. I asked Lord Baldwin if he would come to this country in order to discuss the problems of administration of his territory, which is a perfectly normal procedure in regard to Colonial Governorships, as the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware.

Mr. Stanley: But the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that on that occasion

I asked him whether Lord Baldwin would be returning and it was on that question that he made such a mystery.

Mr. Creech Jones: I made no mystery whatsoever. I said that there were a number of problems which were perplexing me in regard to the administration of the territory, that I had formed no judgment in regard to those problems and would make no statement in regard to the future of the Governorship of the Leeward Islands until I had had the opportunity of the fullest examination of all the problems involved.

NYASALAND (DROUGHT)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what special assistance is contemplated for Nyasaland in view of the serious drought which the country has suffered.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Protectorate's immediate requirements for grain have been met and the Governor has informed me that no further action in regard to the importation of maize is required for the present. Some Colonial Governments have offered temporary assistance with staff, but I understand that at present this is unnecessary.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great need for irrigation in this Protectorate, and would it not be as well to spare for that purpose some of the money at present being squandered in Tanganyika?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a different question, but the problem of irrigation is one important item in the development programme for the next 10 years.

EAST AFRICA (POPULATION)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recently published official estimate of the African population of Kenya, and of the big increases of population in Uganda and Tanganyika, he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission on the population of East Africa.

Mr. Creech Jones: The provisional results of the recent population census of


East Africa cannot be properly compared with previous figures which were based mainly on estimation. Detailed analysis of the present figures supplemented by further information on fertility for certain areas is at present proceeding and I am now awaiting the results of these investigations. In present circumstances, therefore, I do not consider the appointment of a Royal Commission would be appropriate.

Mr. Thomas: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman does appreciate the gravity of the demographic problem in East Africa? Can he also tell me whether the post of demographic adviser, made vacant by the death of Dr. Kuczynski, has been filled?

Mr. Creech Jones: In reply to the last supplementary question, we have not been able to find a suitable specialist to take Dr. Kuczynski's place. In regard to the first supplementary, we are alive to the gravity of this problem. There is considerable obscurity and we are trying to get further information before we decide what further action can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

French Meat (Imports)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements he has concluded for the importation of French meat into Britain.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Canned and open pack cooked meats are already being imported into this country from France by private traders under licence, but our health regulations prevent imports of carcase meat at present. We shall soon be having talks with the French Authorities to try to solve this difficulty.

Mr. Edelman: While welcoming the importation of canned meat from France, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear in mind that it is much more economical to import the carcase meat which the French wish to provide under their Four-Year Plan? Will he also resist any tendentious propaganda by special interests to prevent French meat being sent to this country?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly; we are very anxious to arrange what would be a valuable interchange of goods in this respect.

Mr. Baldwin: Before he gives any licence for the importation of carcase meat from the Continent, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of making quite sure that he has considered the risk of foot-and-mouth disease being imported into this country from the Continent, where it is so prevalent?

Mr. Strachey: That, of course, is a consideration which we have in mind.

Captain John Crowder: Can the Minister say whether any arrangements are being made to import fresh pork from France, as I understood there were to be some arrangements?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. No arrangements have been come to other than those I have referred to here.

Cheese (Subsidy)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food what is the subsidy per pound on each kind of English, Scottish and Welsh cheese sold on the ration at 10d.

Mr. Strachey: With permission, I will circulate a table of figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The subsidies range from 2s. 5¾d. to 2s. 0¼d. per lb.

Mr. Keeling: As those figures show that between 70 and 80 per cent. of the total cost of this cheese is being paid by the taxpayer, will the Minister say if there is any real reason why those who prefer British cheese to unripe imported cheddar, commonly called "mousetrap," should not pay for it instead of paying the ridiculous price of 10d.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member is suggesting that British cheese should be taken out of the ration——

Mr. Keeling: No.

Mr. Strachey: That would be the effect.

Mr. Keeling: No, the purchaser should pay the full cost of the cheese although buying on the ration.

Mr. Strachey: I do not think that is practicable.

Following is the table:


Subsidies on home produced cheeses (including the subsidy on the liquid milk from which they are made).





per lb.





s.
d.


Cheddar
…
…
2
5¾


Cheshire
…
…
2
3¾


Lancashire
…
…
2
3½


Wensleydale
…
…
2
3


Derby
…
…
2
2¼


Leicester
…
…
2
0¼

In the time available it has not been possible to work out the figure for Dunlop cheese, but I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Horsemeat Sales

Mr. Nally: asked the Minister of Food what action he proposes to take to prevent former butchers whose licences to trade have been withdrawn following conviction for black-marketing offences from entering into businesses associated with the slaughter of horses and the wholesale and retail sale of horsemeat.

Mr. Strachey: I am advised that my present powers may not be fully effective for such purposes, I am considering, however, the licensing of slaughterhouses where horseflesh is produced for human consumption on the same lines as knackers' yards are already licensed.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most prominent figures, if not the most prominent figure, in the horsemeat business in Manchester and in a wide area around, is a man who was sent to gaol for four years during the war for black-market offences; that he is developing his business through nominees who are purchasing shops; and that he is closely associated with a well-known black-marketeer whom, unfortunately, we were not able to convict during the war?

Mr. W. J. Brown: Otherwise he is all right?

Prosecutions (Retailers' Evidence)

Mr. Nally: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered the circumstances of a prosecution by his Department at Middleton, Lancashire, on 31st January when a greengrocer was fined

for price offences; and what action has been subsequently taken to make it clear to all retailers that his Department will take action to protect any trader from being blacklisted by wholesalers as a consequence of giving evidence as to offences committed in the wholesale markets.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I have considered this case, and I will make use of all the powers entrusted to me to protect retailers who are blacklisted, or threatened with blacklisting, as a result of giving evidence of offences committed in the wholesale markets.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the North, in Lancashire and the Midlands, in Wolverhampton and areas surrounding my own constituency, we have a long list of cases in which retailers have been prosecuted, and in which, obviously, there have been impositions of conditions of sale and price offences by retailers, and in which they will not give evidence because of a genuine fear among retailers that the consequences of giving such evidence are that they are blacklisted, and that although they will get fine words from the Minister of Food they will not get adequate protection?

Mr. Strachey: I am aware of this difficulty, and I hope that the answer I have just given will have some effect in the matter.

Linseed Oil (Price)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food why he is charging paint manufacturers in this country £180 a ton for linseed oil while competing firms in Germany are able to buy at £100 a ton.

Mr. Strachey: Our selling price for linseed oil, which has been reduced to £170 per ton from 6th March, is based on the cost of imported materials. I have no information about linseed oil prices in Germany.

Mr. Hurd: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any early hope that our own manufacturers will be allowed to buy at the world price?

Mr. Strachey: The prices at which we are buying linseed oil are tending to fall, and, of course, we shall pass on the benefit of that fall to our own manufacturers.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the amount purchased and the price paid in his recent purchases of linseed oil? In view of the fact that a further break in price is confidently anticipated, will he give the House an undertaking that he will enter into no long-term contracts, even with a break clause?

Mr. Strachey: I could not give such an undertaking, but I can assure the House that I am well aware of the consideration the hon. Member has in mind, and that we shall be most careful about future commitments in regard to this commodity.

Egg Supplies (Atlantic Liners)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Food whether the liners "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth" are provisioned with fresh eggs produced in the United Kingdom; and whether the supply is rationed on the same basis as to home consumers.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth" are provisioned with eggs in the United States. The only United Kingdom eggs they receive are those provided for the crew whilst the ships are in port.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries with regard to this matter? I have a reputable journal in my hand, the "Year Book of the National Poultry Club," which definitely states that poultry packers in Hampshire have been instructed to send all their eggs to Southampton docks for provisioning these ships.

Mr. Strachey: I can only say that the reputable journal in question is in error.

Mr. Drayson: If the Minister says that dollars are permitted for the purchase of eggs in New York, will he make those dollars available for the buying of feedingstuffs so that we can feed poultry here?

Mr. Strachey: That is another matter. Whether these ships ought to be provisioned in the United Kingdom is another question, but, in fact, they are not.

Pig-Keeping (Forms)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered how far the restrictions on the keeping and slaughtering of pigs can be removed so as to lessen the work of form filling by producers and form checking by local food offices.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but the registration of pigs for domestic consumption has proved essential to prevent abuses. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on 8th November, 1948.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister look at this again and take the advice of the National Farmers Union and the Small Pig Keepers Council to see if it really is not possible to free more of this labour for productive work for producing more pork and bacon?

Mr. Strachey: I have some of the forms in front of me here, and I cannot see that to fill them in is a very terrible ordeal.

Mr. Hurd: Three forms for every pig.

Mr. David Renton: Is the Minister aware that the self-suppliers' figures have been further increased by his Department's refusal to re-license a number of slaughterers who were killing self-suppliers' pigs, with the result that the pigs have had to travel much too far to reach the nearest licensed slaughter house? Will he look into that matter as well?

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member will give me a particular instance I will certainly look into it.

West Indies Sugar (Purchase)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food what progress has been made with the negotiations with the British West Indies Sugar Association for the purchase of the exportable surplus of sugar from the British West Indies for a guaranteed period of 10 years at prices agreed periodically.

Mr. Strachey: We have already undertaken to purchase the whole exportable surplus of sugar both from the West Indies and from all other parts of the Commonwealth up to the end of 1952. The proposal that this commitment


should be extended for a further period of years beyond 1952 is being studied by the Departments concerned.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that any uncertainty in regard to a crop which takes as long to produce as sugar is bound to hold up production, or at any rate, affect production in the West Indies?

Mr. Strachey: I have some sympathy with that thought, but I think the hon. Member should restrain his unbounded enthusiasm for bulk purchases and longterm contracts because of the consideration advanced by an hon. Friend of his just now that in this period we must have some caution in the matter of the length of time for which we enter these arrangements.

Mrs. Castle: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House whether this Question by the hon. Member indicates a total change of policy by hon. Members opposite on the question of bulk purchases?

Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were giving this kind of contract to the Colonial territories at the time when I was at the Colonial Office, a long time before it was thought that the right hon. Gentleman would hold the office, and a long time before the last General Election?

Mr. Strachey: That is quite possibly the case, and I shall look forward now to the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman in the process of some necessary education in some parts of this House in the matter of bulk purchase.

Flour (Extraction Rate)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether the Government will now consider lowering the extraction rate of flour so as to give more white bread to the public and more feedingstuffs to livestock.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; to do so would mean buying more wheat with dollars which we have not got.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the public want white bread, the farmers want more animal feedingstuffs; that the Government do nothing about it, and that I want to get rid of the Government?

Animal Feedingstuffs

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food what is the estimated dollar expenditure this year on animal feedingstuffs.

Mr. Strachey: We have so far succeeded in buying practically all our animal feedingstuffs from non-dollar sources; our only definite dollar commitment under this head is a quarter of a million pounds for whey powder for calf and chick foods.

Mr. Keeling: What about the rest of the year? Is that thought to be the only contract to be placed for the whole year?

Mr. Strachey: We shall certainly try to get the highest proportion we can of our animal feedingstuffs from non-dollar sources.

Captain Crookshank: Does the pledge of the Lord President of the Council still hold good that scarce dollars would be used for this purpose if necessary?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, if necessary. If it were impossible to get animal feedingstuffs from non-dollar sources it would be necessary to buy some, at least, from dollar sources.

Mr. De la Bère: Get it from somewhere.

Manor House Hostel, Shanklin (Bacon Ration)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, in the last week of February, eight weeks' ration of bacon was drawn simultaneously by the Manor House Hostel, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, which is not permitted under his regulations; and what action is being taken in the matter.

Mr. Strachey: This case will come before the local Food Control Committee in the normal way.

BERMUDA (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the terms of his despatch to the Government of Bermuda, of 17th December 1948; and what action has been taken upon it in respect of constitutional changes and educational advance.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am arranging for a copy of my despatch of 20th November last (which was laid before the House of Assembly on 17th December) to be placed in the Library. As to action taken, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a Question on 26th January.

Mr. Skinnard: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is considerable objection in the island to the delay in providing for educational advance in particular?

Mr. Creech Jones: The Assembly has before it already a Bill for free education in the non-vested schools. That is already drafted and is being considered.

CAMEROONS (BANANA PRODUCTION)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the projected increase in banana production in the Cameroons during the next 12 months.

Mr. Creech Jones: The target for 1949 is 5,000,000 stems of bananas, an increase of 1,000,000 stems over 1948 exports.

Dr. Segal: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be ample refrigeration space available for bringing these bananas to England, so that none will be allowed to rot on the quay, as has happened on previous occasions?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have had no information to that effect.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether the Cameroons Development Corporation have been given the security of a long-term contract?

Mr. Creech Jones: Not yet, but we shall purchase all their supplies for 1949, and we are considering future contracts.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that account is being taken of the prices in relation to what is being paid for Jamaican bananas?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Ordnance Inspectorate (Pay)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the scale of pay on which officers of the Inspectorate of Naval Ordnance are paid came into operation; and when it is proposed to revise it.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The present salaries of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Pool officers consist of a basic element fixed in 1935 and an addition representing an extension of the former Civil Service war bonus. As the hon. Member will have gathered from my previous answer about the Madden Committee on 16th February, these salaries are under review now.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that this Committee reported as early as April, 1948, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when this reconsideration will have some effect?

Mr. Edwards: As I said last night, we hope to be able to give a very early decision with regard to this matter.

Nelson Figurehead, Chatham

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the circumstances which led to the removal of the arm from the figurehead of Lord Nelson at the Royal Naval Barracks at Chatham; and what disciplinary action is being taken against those concerned in the incidents which caused the removal.

Mr. W. Edwards: The outstretched arm of the figurehead was removed in April, 1947, when it was found to have rotted and to be in danger of falling off. Because of the decayed condition of the figurehead as a whole it was not replaced. The removal was not occasioned by any incidents and the question of disciplinary action does not therefore arise.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House an assurance that there was no Communist influence behind this; and is he also aware that since this Government came into power the discipline in the Navy has deteriorated to an alarming extent?

Mr. Edwards: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I have no evidence that Communists had anything to do with Nelson's statue; and, secondly, I do not agree with the hon. Member in the slightest that discipline in the Navy has deteriorated in any way.

Sir W. Smithers: It is true all the same.

Mr. Gallacher: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the decayed arm of Nelson's figurehead is the only harm the Communists in this country resort to, they will not give much trouble?

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will issue instructions abolishing corporal punishment in the Navy.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The only form of corporal punishment which is awarded in the Navy is the caning of boys under 18. This may only be inflicted for a limited number of offences and on the order of the boy's commanding officer. It is not intended to make any change in this practice.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that our Navy is the only navy in the world where this practice is continued, and will he set up a committee to inquire how all the other navies manage without it?

Mr. Dugdale: I will do nothing of the kind. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, if he wants to concern himself with this subject, to cast his eyes upon the public schools where there is considerably more caning than there is in the Navy.

Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that the educational methods in the public schools are now approved of by the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Dugdale: I have just said that perhaps the public schools would be a more fruitful source for the hon. Gentleman's inquiries than the Royal Navy.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman will remember that public schoolboys are frequently caned for calling other people nasty names.

Returned Warships (U.S.S.R.)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many warships have now been returned from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics; and how many have been delivered to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics from the ex-enemy navies.

Mr. Dugdale: Seven British warships have been returned from the U.S.S.R. Eight ex-Italian, 34 ex-Japanese, 13 ex-Finnish, 18 ex-Roumanian, 765 ex-German warships, including miscellareons auxiliaries, have been delivered to the U.S.S.R. The German warships were allocated by the Tripartite Naval Commission which gave the U.K. 620 and the U.S.A. 661 under the same allocation.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Parliamentary Secretary any information as to how many more are coming back from the U.S.S.R.?

Mr. Dugdale: That is another question. More will come in due course. As hon. Members are aware, in comparing the number received from Italy, the number of ships returned to us is based on the tonnage rather than on the actual number of ships.

SHIPBUILDING (STEEL ALLOCATION)

Colonel Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he expects to increase the allocation of steel to the shipbuilding industry; and whether he is aware that orders for foreign vessels are being lost because British yards cannot give sufficiently early dates of delivery.

Mr. W. Edwards: The first part of the Question is for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir." I am not aware of the loss or cancellation of any orders for merchant ships whose construction in British yards has been licensed.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the statement from me that, nevertheless, orders are being lost on account of the question of delivery? Is he aware that the industry is working at about half its potential capacity; and


that with an increased allocation of steel, time could be reduced, the cost of vessels could be reduced, the cost of freights could be reduced, and, consequently, the cost to the public could be reduced?

Mr. Edwards: I am quite prepared to accept the word of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to his experience, but I would point out that the shipbuilding industry, like all other industries in the country, has to go a little short of steel these days because of the general shortage of steel. I want also to state that the shipbuilding industry is not doing too badly, because it is being given a little above its allocation.

TELEVISION SERVICE (EQUIPMENT)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent the delays in providing new equipment for the tele

vision service are due to the fact that materials are required from abroad which are unprocurable owing to the dollar shortage.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): The B.B.C. informs me that such delays as have occurred in equipping the television service have been due to shortage of materials and manpower. The Corporation does not consider that the dollar shortage has contributed directly to the delays.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes. 231; Noes, 106.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[3.35 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Albu, A. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, S. O. (Morthyr)
Hynd, J. B. (Atrercliffe)


Alpass, J. H
Deer, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Delargy, H. J.
Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)


Attewell, H. C.
Dodds, N. N.
Janner, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jenkins, R. H,


Awbery, S. S.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Ayles, W. H.
Edelman, M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Bacon, Miss A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Albert (Istington, W.)
Jones, Jack (Bolton)


Barstow, P. G.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Barton, C.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Keenan, W.


Battley, J. R.
Fairhurst, F.
Kendall, W. D.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fornyhough, E.
Kenyon, C.


Berry, H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Kinley, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Kirby, B. V.


Binns, J.
Forman, J. C.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Blackburn, A. R.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lavers, S.


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lee, F. (Hul me)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Gallacher, W.
Leslie, J. R.


Bramall, E. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gibbins. J
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gilzean, A
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lindgren, G. S.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Granville, E. (Eye)
Lipson, D. L.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Burden, T. W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Logan, D. G.


Byers, Frank
Grey, C. F.
Longden, F.


Carmichael, James
Grierson, E.
Lyne, A. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McAdam, W.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
MoEntee, V. La T.


Champion, A J.
Gunter, R. J.
McGhee, H. G.


Chater, D.
Guy. W. H.
Mack, J. D.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
McKinlay, A. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Maotoan, N. (Govan)


Cobb, F A.
Hardman, D. R.
MoLeavy, F.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardy, E. A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
MacPherson, Maloolm (Stirling)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Cooper, G,
Herbison, Miss M,
Mainwaring, W. H.


Corlelt, Dr. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cove, W. G.
Holman, P.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Cullen, Miss
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)


Daggar, G.
Horabin, T. L.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George 


Daines, P.
Hubbard, T.
Mellish, R. J


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Middleton, Mrs L.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Mikardo, Ian 




Mitchison, G. R.
Reeves, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Monslow, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Morley, R.
Richards, R
Tiffany, S.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Ridealgh, Mrs, M.
Timmons, J


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Titterington, M. F


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Tolley, L.


Mort, D. L.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Viant, S. P.


Moyle, A.
Soollan, T.
Wadsworth, G.


Murray, J. D.
Scott-Elliot, W
Walker, G. H.


Naylor, T. E.
Segal, Dr. S
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Sharp, Granville
Warbey, W. N.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Watkins, T. E.


Oldfield, W. H.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Parker, J 
Skinnard, F. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Smith, Eliis (Stoke)
West, D. G.


Pearson, A.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)
White., H. (Derbyshire, N. E.


Peart, T. F,
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Snow, J. W.
Wigg, George


Popplewell, E.
Solley, L. J.
Wilkes, L.


Porter, E. (Warringlon)
Sorenson, R. W
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Price, M. Philips 
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) 


Pritt, D. N.
Stubbs, A. E
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Prootor, W. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Pryde, D. J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woods, G. S.


Randall, H. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Ranger, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)



Rankin, J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hurd, A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S


Baldwin, A. E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Barlow, Sir J.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bower, N.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Langford-Holt, J
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M. 


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Spence, H. R,


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife. E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities) 


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stuart. Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


De la Bère, R.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, S. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R E 
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, P. W.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Gammans, L. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Molson, A. H. E.
Turton, R. H.


Gridley, Sir A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wheatley, Colonel M. I. (Dorset, E.)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
York, C.


 Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C 
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)



Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbert, Sir A. P.
Odey, G. W.
Major Conant and


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Brigadier Mackeson.


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.41 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Although some provision, to which I shall refer in a moment, is made for widows, orphans and other dependants of deceased civil servants, the absence of such provision on anything like an adequate scale is a defect in the present superannuation code for the Civil Service. This Bill seeks to remedy that state of affairs. At present, the only provision is that where an individual dies during his period of service, what is known as a "death gratuity" is paid. This ranges from one year's salary, for those who die after five years' service, to one and a half year's salary for those who have served 40 years.
For those who retire as pensioners, provision was made in the Superanuation Act, 1935, to enable them to allocate part of their pension to their wives. The disadvantages of this arrangement are that the civil servant cannot allocate until after he has retired, and that he has then to satisfy the doctor that he is what is called a "good life." This places those wishing to take advantage of this provision in a situation of uncertainty as they approach the date of their retirement and, if they have reason to believe that their health is not too good, I think that the House will agree that their position is a pretty hopeless one. To make any pension for his wife worth while, the reduction of the individual's own pension has to be fairly substantial. Because of this and because of the need for a medical examination after retirement, not a very large number of civil servants have taken advantage of this provision; in fact, up to the end of last year only something like 7,000 have allocated part of their pensions to their wives in this way.
Pension schemes to cover dependants usually take one of two forms; they can be either a flat rate annuity, so that the same amount is payable to all, or they can be an annuity based on the earnings at the time of retirement or at the time of death. Those who have studied the

Bill will see that the provisions are based on the second alternative. The reason for this is that, just as under the existing Civil Service code a man's pension is based on his income just before retirement so that the drop from the salary to the pension shall not be too drastic, so under the provisions of this Bill his widow's income in our view should similarly not be unreasonably reduced below that which the family enjoyed at the time of the man's death. For that reason, we have followed the Civil Service code and taken, as I said, the second alternative.
Perhaps before I go any further, I should make it clear that there is in the Civil Service a minimum qualifying period which is necessary before a civil servant is entitled to a pension. This qualifying period is 10 years. It therefore follows, that no benefits can accrue to dependants of civil servants under the Bill unless the civil servant concerned has first become pensionable by completing 10 years' service. I want that to be quite clear in the minds of Members before I proceed to indicate what we propose under the various parts of this Measure.
The Bill provides that a civil servant's widow shall receive one-third of his pension if he has retired, or one-third of his accrued pension if he dies while still in the service. This formula would not by itself prevent a considerable fall in family income when a man dies relatively early in his career. For example, if a man dies after only 12 years' service, the widow's pension will be only one-twentieth of her husband's salary. To mitigate the hardship which would be caused by strict application of this formula, the scheme therefore provides that, where a civil servant dies with at least 10 years' service but with less than 20 years' service, the widow's pension shall be calculated as if he had in fact completed 20 years' service. This will give her at least one-twelfth of her husband's salary as a pension. Even with this safeguard, the pension payable to many widows would unfortunately still be small and, to prevent them from being completely derisory, the scheme provides that a widow's pension shall not in any case be less than £26 a year.
I now come to the benefits which the Bill proposes for children. The scheme differentiates between the case where a


civil servant leaves a widow and children, and the case where the civil servant leaves motherless children. What does the Bill provide for widows with children? In addition to the widow's pension to which I have just referred, the Bill provides for each child up to four that the widow's pension should be increased by 25 per cent.; that is, the widow with four children will receive twice as much as a childless widow. Even so, if her husband has not had considerable service, the widow and four children will receive only one-sixth of her husband's salary at the time of his death. As to motherless children, the benefits are based on what the widow's pension would have been, if she had lived. A single orphan for example, will get under the Bill one-half of the mother's pension; two children will get three-quarters; and three or more children will get the full widow's pension that would have accrued to the mother.

Sir Patrick Hannon: That is 10s. a week?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Perhaps we can discuss individual cases later. I have already indicated that in some cases it is likely that the pension will be small. All I am doing now is to indicate the basis of the scheme. Children's benefits will be paid in any case up to the age of 16, and thereafter as long as the child is at school or undergoing an apprenticeship.
The scheme is to be compulsory on marriage for all future entrants into the Civil Service. Existing civil servants may contract out of it if they so desire, in view of the fact that it was not part of their contract when they entered the Service. It is, however, confidently expected that most of the present established staff will desire to avail themselves of the facilities. The scheme is contributory. Those entering it, if they are fully established and come in after the Bill passes into law, will contribute half the cost. This is the actuaries' estimate of what will happen when the scheme is actually going and all new entrants come in on a compulsory basis. This is assured by the scales of contributions prescribed; as to the other half, the Crown will meet it, as a good employer should.
How will contributions be levied? Those participating will be required to

pay 1¼ per cent. of their salary or, if they prefer, an equivalent capitalised payment from the lump sum paid them on retirement or the death gratuity paid to a man's estate, if he dies during his service. If the person so prefers, he may pay part of his liability by the first method and the rest by the second. The existence of these lump sum payments in the superannuation code not only makes it possible to provide for this alternative method of payment, but solves the awkward problem of back payments. These back payments are bound to arise. Most civil servants who come in in future will enter the scheme only on marriage or establishment, and a number of years will have to be made good, if their full pensionable service is to be taken into account. So far as existing civil servants are concerned, they must inevitably have this back log of payments to make up for past years. There will, of course, be no question of requiring a civil servant to pay contribution in respect of any part of his service during which he has no wife living. If his wife dies, he must pay contributions up to her death, since he has been covered for that period. Thereafter he has no liability, unless he marries again before he retires.
The scheme introduces a provision which is perhaps not usual in Measures of this kind. It provides that a married woman who has a dependent husband shall be able to make provision for him. The scheme is, of course, primarily for married men and, although there are a number of married women in the Service, it is safe to say that, generally speaking, their husbands are not economically dependent upon them. However, even now—and very probably in the future—there may be married women in the Service whose husbands have been disabled in some way, and who are completely dependent upon them. Provision is made for such women to enter this scheme, if they so desire, just as if they were men. This will enable them to provide not only for their disabled husbands but for any children that they may have.
What about the man who has retired? Unfortunately, it is impossible to extend the scheme to all those who have retired. I wish it were possible, but I regret that it is quite out of the question. A line must be drawn somewhere. It has been decided—and it is for the House to agree


—that those who did not retire until after VE-day or, if they did so retire, did six months' service as a re-engaged pensioner after that date, may come in if they wish.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to apply the scheme universally to those men and women who have already retired. That may be so, but can he tell us why it is impossible? The whereabouts of these people are known.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that is a Committee point to which we can come later. I know that a number of Members are interested and that outside interests have approached certain Members, quite properly, to ventilate their case. It would be difficult, for instance, to collect the rather substantial contributions that would fall to be paid from such pensioners who had been retired for a good many years and who may have quite properly dissipated the gratuity which had been paid to them.

Mr. Brown: Cannot they be given the option?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is the view of the Treasury, and it was agreed by the staff side of the National Whitley Council, that the provisions in the Measure for pensioners who have retired should be as they are set forth in the Bill.
Part I of the Bill enables a married man to provide for his widow and children and a married woman to provide for a dependent husband and children. The scheme could stop there, but it has been considered right that further provision should be made to enable women and unmarried men to provide for any near relatives who may be dependent upon them. A man may not have married because of an obligation to look after such a dependent relative, and it is only fair, in our view, that such cases should be recognised and, in so far as we can, provided for in the code.
This scheme is dealt with in Part II of the Bill. It is open to any established civil servant, man or woman, who has a near relative wholly or mainly dependent upon him or her, and subject only to this: that participation in the widows' and children's scheme will, with one exception, make them ineligible to take

part in the dependants' scheme. The exception is that the person subject to Part I of the Bill may, in addition, if he so wishes, cover an incapacitated child under Part II of the Bill. Those joining the dependants' scheme will be able to provide for one adult, such as a mother or a dependent sister, or up to three children. For instance, a married woman in the service may want to make provision for a child if she has been deserted by her husband, and also for one incapacitated child.
The benefits in the dependants' scheme, outlined in Part II, will be on the same basis as the pensions payable under the widows' and children's scheme outlined in Part I; that is to say, a dependent mother or sister will get the same pension as a widow, and a dependent child the same pension as a child taken care of under Part I. This part of the scheme must, I think, be optional. Its provisions can only apply to those who have certain near relatives dependent upon them, and feel that they should make proper provisions for them.
What about contributions? These must, in the nature of the case, vary. They cannot be on the flat rate of 1¼ per cent., the reason for which is pretty obvious. The scheme is optional, and it would not result in the cost being evenly spread as between employer and employee. Moreover, the difference in ages between insurer and insured will often vary considerably, whereas the normal difference between the ages of a man and his wife is not very great. Therefore, it is laid down that contributions shall be fixed by tables to be drawn up by the Government Actuary. Apart from this the ordinary machinery of levying contributions will be the same as is laid down in Part I.
The Bill runs to 60 Clauses. It is a longer Measure than we had at first contemplated, but it is our view that the extra Clauses have, in fact, meant greater clarity. The House will have noticed that in Part III we have inserted a miscellaneous collection of provisions, which can properly be dealt with when we reach the Committee stage. I should like to tell the House, however, of the contents of certain of these because, unless I misjudge what I hear, some of them will undoubtedly be raised during this Debate and on the Committee stage of the Bill.
Perhaps I should first draw the attention of the House to Clause 34. What this Clause does is to facilitate compulsory retirement on proportionate pension of civil servants who, having reached the age of 50, are no longer fully efficient. The Crown has, of course, the right to discharge any civil servant without notice and without pension, and nothing in this provision derogates from that power. That, plainly, is not the way to deal with the question of relative inefficiency. Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, gives power to retire on proportionate pension any civil servant who is unable—and here I quote—
on account of inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office.
The procedure, however, requires the laying of a minute before Parliament, giving the name of the individual concerned and the reason for his discharge—a not altogether humane way of treating an individual who has really done nothing criminal, and who has failed to live up to expectations, through a variety of causes like sickness. It has therefore been thought that we should introduce this provision into this Measure in order that such a civil servant, after the age of 50, can be pensioned with a proportionate pension on a certificate from his Minister that his retirement is desirable in the interests of efficiency.
At the same time, it is only fair that the same option should be given to an individual civil servant when he reaches the age of 50 and himself wants to retire. We permit that in this Bill. If a civil servant goes in this way, he will go without an immediate pension, except in certain compassionate cases; but he will take with him the right, as soon as he reaches the normal retiring age, to draw a proportionate pension which he has earned up to the time he retired.

Sir P. Hannon: Where a Minister determines that a civil servant must retire, will the civil servant have any means of appeal from the decision of the Minister who examines his case?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member means when he is forcibly retired?

Sir P. Hannon: Yes.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That was the instance I was giving a moment or two

ago. There is always the Whitley machinery, and no doubt attention will be given to any representation that an individual might make; but, if the hon. Member means an outside tribunal or machinery of that kind, the answer is "No."

Mr. W. J. Brown: Would the individual not be covered by the ordinary appeal machinery already existing in the public service?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I thought the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) meant something additional to that.
There are two other Clauses, 35 and 36, to which I should like to make reference. Here we make provision to retain a retiring civil servant if that seems right and proper. If it is thought in the best interests of the Service that a civil servant should stay on after he reaches retiring age, provision is made not only to allow him to do so—he can do that now—but to count those added years up to five towards extra pension.
Before I sit down, I should like to say one or two words about unestablished staff. All the provisions so far relate to established civil servants. Certain proposals are made in the Bill for additional benefits to unestablished staff. Clause 39 permits provision to be made to widen the circumstances in which a gratuity may be paid to those who are not established, and to shorten the qualifying period from 15 to 7 years where the retirement is due to ill-health or age. In addition, Clause 40 permits the reckoning of certain kinds of part-time unestablished service for gratuity or, if the person becomes established, towards pension. It is the policy of the Government to reduce the proportion of unestablished staff to a minimum. In fact, large numbers are already being established. As more and more of these unestablished members of the service join the permanent staff, they will come under the provisions which I have outlined, and which are laid down in Parts I and II of the Bill. The benefits which are there provided enure to them as to those who are now or may be permanent civil servants.
One word as to cost. The charges likely to fall upon the Exchequer are fully dealt with in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, and I shall not repeat them now. But those


who have read the Memorandum will know that, owing to the contributions made during the early years, it is estimated that, not until 10 years after the passing of the Bill, will there be any net cost to the Exchequer under Parts I and II. Thereafter the net cost will exceed receipts until, after 20 years, the cost of the pensions to the State may reach a figure of £3¼ million. Under Part III of the Bill, the cost should not exceed £500,000 in the first year; thereafter, it will be a diminishing amount.
The proposals embodied in the Bill give effect to an agreement come to between the official and staff sides of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. By that I do not mean to say that the staff side has been completely satisfied. I only mention it in order to show that, so far as the Bill goes, it carries the willing assent of the staff side to what is proposed. Civil servants are of course human, and they are liable to errors and by no means perfect. Nevertheless, it is repeatedly asserted, and it is true, that this country has the finest Civil Service in the world. Though civil servants are often the butt of every little red-nosed comedian who fancies himself to be a side-splitting humorist, though they are often unjustly criticised by people who ought to know better, they go quietly ahead with their work year after year. I am pleased to realise that this Measure gives further recognition to their work and their service to the community. I therefore commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will receive the willing assent of hon. Members in all quarters.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: This House has always taken a very special interest in matters connected with the Civil Service. Indeed, we have a very special responsibility for these people, and I think we can say that in all quarters of the House that responsibility has always been recognised and appreciated. I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for the very careful way in which he has introduced the Bill and explained it to us. It is rather a difficult and complicated Bill to those who have been trying to understand it, but although it is rather long, I agree with the Financial Secretary in thinking that the Parliamentary draftsmen, at any rate, have done their best to make it clear and have

avoided, as far as possible, trying to make this House legislate by reference. The whole House should be grateful for that.
We on this side of the House give our general support to the Bill and we shall certainly support its Second Reading. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will be the first to agree that there will have to be a close examination of some of its Clauses in Committee, and I have no doubt that we may find that there are certain changes which it may be desirable to make. No doubt points will be raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House. A good many hon. Members have received certain representations about the Bill.
We have received representations from the unestablished civil servants. There are several points which they want raised, points which will no doubt he discussed in Committee. They want unestablished service to count in full for superannuation purposes, they want gratuities to unestablished civil servants which, under the Bill, are payable as of right, to be given after five years' service and the amount increased to one-tenth of the salary for each year of service, and they want some other things, all of which we shall have to discuss with great care on the Committee stage.
The Opposition, of course, as is well known, desire to see a reduction in the work which is placed upon civil servants; that is to say, they would be glad to see certain alterations which would make it possible for the number of civil servants to be fewer than it is at present. The latest return, which we got only yesterday, shows that we still have about 700,000 civil servants. That is, of course, a very swollen figure compared with prewar years. Nevertheless, we believe just as much as hon. Members on the other side that the British Civil Service is the best in the world. We are immensely proud of it.
I am glad that the Financial Secretary said what he did because all of us have heard people jeering at the Civil Service, a quite unworthy thing to do. Very often the criticism which should really be levelled against Ministers is levelled against civil servants; that is to say, people do not always understand that the civil servant is carrying out the policy of his Minister, and if there is any


criticism to make about the policy, that criticism must be made against the Minister and not the civil servant. Sometimes people may criticise civil servants and think they are not perfect, but if it is policy which has to be criticised, those who criticise the civil servants are certainly on the wrong tack.
If we agree that we have a fine Civil Service, we must surely also agree that the Civil Service ought to be fairly and properly remunerated and treated as a good employer would treat a good employee. On the question of the salaries of civil servants, this is not the time to make observations, but it is relevant to the Bill to observe that civil servants get non-contributory pensions which, in fact, make their salaries somewhat higher than they appear to be on the face of it. I believe it has been suggested that one ought to add something like one-fifth to the salary to get the full salary compared with—

Mr. W. J. Brown: No, that is too high. It should be 12½ per cent.

Mr. Assheton: It is suggested by the hon. Member who knows so much about these things, that it should be 12½ per cent. At any rate, some sum should be added to the present salary to make it equivalent to a salary which is not pensionable. The Financial Secretary told us that various calculations had been made by the actuary and I should like to know what numbers of civil servants were calculated as likely to be employed over the period for which the actuary made the calculation. The House would be interested to know that.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he would be good enough to clarify the question which he puts and I can then be sure of giving him the correct answer. When he talks about the number employed, does he mean the numbers likely to come into the scheme, and if so, which scheme, the optional scheme under Part II, or that under Part I, which is through marriage?

Mr. Assheton: I am principally interested in the scheme under Part I which will be compulsory to new entrants. The Bill has four parts. Part I deals with pensions to widows and children, Part II

deals with dependants' pensions, in Part III there are certain amendments to the Superannuation Acts, and in Part IV there are some miscellaneous Clauses. The first two Parts, which deal with the modest pensions on a contributory basis for both widows and dependants, will I am sure generally meet with the approval of this House, subject to the discussion which we shall have in Committee. As the Financial Secretary said, that provision will not involve the Exchequer in any net cost for 10 years and even ultimately it will not involve a large contribution relative to the numbers employed. I think it is right that civil servants should receive encouragement to make provision for those to whom they have obligations and for the first time, under this Bill, we are giving them the opportunity to do so. Indeed, the fact that it is to be a compulsory contribution in the case of new entrants is something that I am sure the House will welcome.
There are a large number of professional and business people in this country who do not have the advantage which civil servants enjoy now, and which civil servants will enjoy under this Bill. There are many people who, because they are self-employed or for other reasons, cannot participate in superannuation schemes. It is a real difficulty in these days for people, particularly in the professional classes, to make provision for their latter days and also for their wives and children. I hope very much that the Financial Secretary and the Government will give consideration to this point, because they, too, are taxpayers and on them, too, will fall such burdens as there may be as a result of this Bill.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will give some thought to what might be done to help these people in some other form. Possibly an opportunity will occur in the Finance Bill. There is a considerable feeling in the country that the professional man is at present hard hit. It is much more difficult for him than it was. In some cases it is almost impossible for him to make provision out of his taxed income owing to the steep increases which have been made in taxation in recent years, a matter with which we are all too sadly familiar. Although this is not a matter which could be appropriately inserted in this Bill, it


is one to which I hope the Government will give their serious attention, because such people need security for their old age and for their dependants just as much as civil servants or those who are in the happy position of being able to join other superannuation schemes.
In Part III there are certainly some useful provisions and I was glad to see Clause 34 which deals with superannuation benefit in certain cases of premature retirement. The Financial Secretary referred to that Clause and explained the circumstances in which it might be valuable. There are some who doubt whether the age of 50 which is specified in this Clause is the right age, but that is a matter which can be discussed when we come to the Committee stage.
Clause 39 deals with the gratuities to unestablished civil servants. This is a matter upon which I have already touched and which, again, we shall have to consider in Committee. Clause 40, I am glad to see, gives the opportunity of granting gratuities to certain part-time civil servants who may have served the Government a long time. The particular illustration of that which springs to one's mind is the village postmistress who may have served the Post Office faithfully for many years and to whom a small gratuity at the end of her time will be welcome.
I do not think there is anything further I want to say at this stage. We are certainly anxious to examine all the points which have been submitted to us and the representations made on behalf of the unestablished civil servants, but to go into them at great length today would not be appropriate.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Randall: It is not inappropriate that I should follow the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) who is one of my illustrious constituents. I am happy in the knowledge that he supports the Bill because he probably will not give me difficulty in my constituency. I, too, desire to support this Bill warmly and to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he has introduced it and to thank him for his great interest in the Civil Service. It has been a great joy to some of us who were in the Civil Service for some years to find my right hon.

Friend, holding the office of Financial Secretary, taking that great interest.
Like most of the Bills that come before the House this is a Bill which we laymen find it exceedingly difficult to read and understand. For instance the first few lines of Clause 46:
Where a civil servant marries and— … (c) the Treasury are of the opinion that his death within the year beginning with the date of the marriage was, at that date, to be foreseen by him, …
How it is possible for a civil servant to anticipate his death and for it to be foreseen by him, I do not understand. I suppose the lawyers have a good reason for putting it in the Bill, but we laymen are at a loss to understand such legal phraseology. Because superannuation is dealt with mainly by legislation it is necessary for us to have it in this form, and if we are to have a reform of the superannuation law affecting all the civil servants, from the highest to the lowest, then of course we must have legislation of this kind.
I was overawed, almost overwhelmed, when I first read the Bill because I am sure that some hon. Members who are not so familiar with the Civil Service as others, may feel that the Bill is overgenerous. I want to represent this Bill to the House as a human document that uncovers a good deal of personal tragedy in the Civil Service over a number of years. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to pay a compliment to the Civil Service. Such speeches are not always made from the opposite benches. Outside this House, and on the party political platform, we have heard such references to civil servants by hon. Members opposite as "spivs," "unproductive," "work-shy," "unimaginative," "hidebound," "hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats," and "let us get rid of them." On one occasion I even heard the phrase "altogether unnecessary." Those things have been said outside, and they disturb those in the Civil Service who are unable to answer back. However, this afternoon we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman a compliment which, knowing him as I do, I am sure he meant.

Mr. Osbert Peake: May I interrupt the hon. Gentlemen? Surely he recognises that it is possible to have too much even of a very good thing?

Mr. Randall: Oh, yes, but sometimes we have criticism from the other side which may be much too much of a good thing, and I am bound to say that on occasions full opportunity is taken of criticising the Civil Service without giving—

Mr. Peake: indicated dissent.

Mr. Randall: Oh, yes. However, I will not pursue it. These things have been said, but I was glad this afternoon to hear from the right hon. Gentleman his appreciation of the value of the Civil Service.
The fact that civil servants have suffered for many years is something which was known to previous Governments. There is the Rowland Hill Fund, with files mountain high, showing the tragedy which has gone on within the ranks of the Civil Service. Then there is the Postmaster-General's Special Fund, which had to be instituted because many ex-servants of the Post Office were destitute. It is exceedingly difficult to get anything out of this fund. In fact, many ex-servants of the Post Office must undergo a means test in order to get money from it. Past Governments have known all about what has been happening in the Civil Service, but nothing has been done. It is not untrue to say that the Civil Service has suffered too long for its mock respectability and that that mock respectability has been fostered too long by previous Governments.
As I have said, in making my contribution to the Debate, I want to approach the Bill from its human aspect. There have been hundreds and thousands of cases of widows and orphans being left destitute. It has been the remaining staff who have shouldered their problem and burden. The only way in which it has been possible to relieve such situations has been either by starting a sheet or by taking up a collection, and usually the chief of the department has had to head the list. The Bill will go a long way to relieving this state of affairs which has existed for too long.
Civil servants in substantial numbers have been forced by ill-health to go into early retirement. I know of many a colleague in the Post Office who has had to retire on a pension of as low as 12s. a week. I am glad to know that those in a similar position who retire after the

passing of the Bill, will have such a pension raised to £1 4s. This section of the Bill represents an advance of which the men in the Civil Service will be proud.
Very many unestablished civil servants have never had a right to a gratuity, although they have served for as long as 50 years and left the Service at the age of 70 or 75. Although these men gave a lifetime of service they had no right to any gratuity at the end. The hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) cited especially the case of the postmistress. I should like to mention the auxiliary postman as an example of someone who is unestablished. This grand old English gentleman who walks around the countryside, in season and out, over mountains and bogs and in the remotest parts of the land, goes his rounds and makes his deliveries year after year, sometimes for as long as 50 years. He may not leave the service until he is 65, 70 or even 75 years of age, but when he has done so in the past there has been no right to a gratuity for him. The Bill goes a long way to make it possible for these good friends of ours now to be able to get a gratuity as a matter of course.
Many thousands of civil servants who have subsequently become established, have not been allowed to reckon their part-time service for pension purposes. These part-timers—the auxiliary postman and the assistant postman—are men similar to those of whom I have already spoken. I was myself an assistant postman. Despite the fact that I had been a boy messenger since I was aged 14, I could not receive my appointment as an established postman until I was 21. As a result, had I remained in the service until I was 60 years of age, all that I would have been entitled to count towards a pension was 40 years' established service. It would have been impossible for me to claim the full pension because for one year I had been an assistant postman.
I do not wish to stress my own case but shall quote instead that of one of my colleagues, a Mr. C. Barnes, beside whom I worked for many years at the E.C.D.O. In 1900 he was a boy messenger at Woodford. In about 1903 he became an assistant postman. He retired in 1947, having been a good postman and reliable servant, of whom people


on his rounds were proud. Although he had been in the service of the Post Office from 1900 until 1947, he was retired on a pension of only 37 years' reckonability—without, therefore, a full pension. The Bill will help to remedy this kind of deficiency. Mr. Barnes, however, unfortunately has gone and will not enjoy the benefits arising from this Measure.
I hope that in Committee the Financial Secretary will be able to consider the possibility of retrospective action in cases of this kind. There are not very many men still within this category, but it would be a very great stimulus to them to feel that they could obtain this additional assistance. I am sorry that only one quarter of part-time service is to count towards pension. I hope that during the Committee stage it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that he is prepared to raise this figure to at least one half for purposes of reckonability towards pension.
I hope that anything I may say on the deficiencies of the Bill will not be regarded as criticism against it, for it is a very good Measure indeed. I mention them, however, to give the Financial Secretary an opportunity to look again at some of the grievances which have existed in the Civil Service for a very long time. If we are to have superannuation reform, if there is to be a cleaning-up through the medium of the Bill, then let us try to deal with one or two other matters of real grievance to the staff which could, I feel, be removed.
There is the issue of the length of Colour Service which may be counted. Service in His Majesty's Forces prior to enlistment should be made reckonable for pension purposes. My reason for raising this question is that some 50 per cent. of postmen, for example, are recruited from the Forces. In other words, they have a reservation. Those who are accepted for short-service engagements of three years have an opportunity of entering the service of the Post Office up to 30 years of age. If the engagement is a longer one, of from 7 to 12 years, then the age limit for entry into the postman class is raised to 45 years of age. This is an inducement to men to join the Forces when at the end of their Service they have an opportunity of coming into the Post Office service, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for War will be interested in this as it is an opportunity for encouraging recruitment. These men can go in for short engagements and their Service with the Colours can count when they come into the Post Office service.
I would remind my right hon. Friend that there is support for this claim. In 1906 a Departmental Committee under Colonel Sir E. Ward supported the claim. The Superannuation Act, 1948, made provision for men to count their service in World War II as half service and, surely, there should be equity of treatment. These men who come into the Post Office should have an opportunity of counting their service towards pension. The merit of such a scheme is that it would act as an incentive to men to enter the Forces on a short period of engagement and would act as a spur to recruitment. At present, conditions are not such as would encourage men to come into the Post Office and take up appointments as postmen, but here is an opportunity of dealing with two problems—pressing forward with recruitment and encouraging postmen to come into the service.
Another aspect which ought to be looked at is that of counting service performed prior to establishment in the Civil Service. This is another bone of contention and a grievance to the men. Why should not unestablished service performed immediately prior to establishment be counted in full? At present, as from 1935, we have what is known as the half service rule; service as to half of unestablished is counted as established and reckonable for pension. There is a good case for unestablished service, continuing with established service, counting as full.
I wish to commend my right hon. Friend for what he has done in regard to the gratuities. The reduction of the qualifying period from 15 to seven years is excellent and. I am proud that this is being done by a Labour Government. I am also very proud that payment to these men will become a matter of course. Both these reforms were long overdue and I am glad to see them in the Bill, but the scale of payment of gratuities is too low. It is suggested in the Bill that there should be £1 or one week's pay for each year of service, and I think that quite inadequate as a reward for service. It is quite inadequate to make provision


which results from the contingencies whereby retirement is necessary. Those contingencies are, death in harness, discharge through redundancy, or discharge from ill health and age. Those conditions of cessation of employment surely demand that there should be a better reward than that provided in the Bill. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with that point in Committee.
I hope also that the points I have mentioned—Colour service to count, counting of unestablished service in full, gratuities, and part-timers obtaining establishment—can be looked at more fully when we reach the Committee stage. I also hope that the Minister will apply his mind to seeing if it is possible to make some advance. I warmly welcome the Bill and am proud that it is a Labour Government which has produced another charter for the Civil Service.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I share the appreciation of hon. Members in all parts of the House of the very clear exposition of the Bill which we have had from the Financial Secretary this afternoon. It is an important Bill; it is a Bill which embodies a number of distinctively new features in Civil Service superannuation law and practice. In particular, at a later stage, I shall comment on the widows and dependants scheme, the provision for either compulsory or voluntary retirement prior to reaching normal age limit, and other main features of the Bill.
I wish to begin by saying that we have to look at this Bill in relation to the existing background of Civil Service law and practice. The assumption is that existing law and practice as modified by the contents of this Bill, will produce a satisfactory superannuation system in the public service. That is the assumption which underlies the presentation of this Bill, and, at the risk of appearing ungrateful, I propose to begin by sharply challenging that assumption. I challenge it as regards the men and women who have left the public service, and I challenge it in relation to the hundreds of thousands of people still employed in it. We do not make injustice just by adding a modicum of justice to an unjust basis. It is my first submission to the House that, both as respects the men who have

gone, and the men who remain, the existing situation is an unjust one, which is not remedied by the terms of this Bill.
The position of the men and women who have completed their period of service and are receiving pensions of one sort or another is governed by the Superannuation Act, 1909, plus the two Acts passed in recent years, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947. They receive what they are entitled to under the 1909 Act, plus what was given by those subsequent Acts of Parliament. I said at the time, to both sides of this House—I said it in 1944 and repeated it in 1947—that the provisions of those two Measures were utterly inadequate to the situation. I invited both sides of the House to impel the Government into giving increases of pensions which had some relation to the increase in the cost of living. I regret to say that I received the support of neither side of the House, although, since then, numbers of Members of Parliament have come to me with cases of injustice among Civil Service pensioners and asked, "What can we do about it?" Those cases were the direct result of not compelling the Government to do the right thing in 1944 and in 1947.
Consider what we did, at a time when the cost of living was immeasurably higher than in 1939. We gave miserably inadequate increases of pension, of as little as 10 per cent., in a situation where the cost of living had risen, officially, by perhaps 70 per cent. and, unofficially, by a good deal more. We accompanied the increases which we gave by a means test. In all the years when the cost of living was coming down, and pensions were being reduced in accordance with that, no one ever suggested applying a "survival test." It was only when these miserably inadequate increases were proposed that it was suggested that even they should not be given unless the individual pensioner could pass the prescribed means test laid down in the Acts. Finally, we imported a wholly unjustified and unprecedented differentiation of treatment as between the male pensioner and the female pensioner.
All these things were said at the time. and at that stage neither side of the House was willing to do elementary justice to those retired pensioners. And what we are now doing is to accept that unjust situation except in so far as it is


qualified by the terms of this Bill. Those terms provide no increase whatever for the vast mass of the pensioners; they still leave a means test applying to the increase given, and still perpetuate the differentiation of treatment as between women pensioners on the one hand and men pensioners on the other. That is the existing basis in regard to the pensioners.
What about the civil servants who still remain, and who will one day become pensioners? In connection with the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947—not the Pensions (Increase) Act but the last Civil Service Superannuation Act with which we dealt in this Parliament—I pointed out that the grievance in relation to unestablished service was not removed by the terms of that Act. It enabled half unestablished service to count, and to that extent it was an improvement on the earlier practice, under which no earlier unestablished service counted.
I invite the House to consider the kind of thing that actually exists. My Civil Service colleagues on the Government side of the House will bear me out in what I am about to say. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) was perfectly right in saying that until 1947 it was perfectly possible for a man to enter the public service of this country in one capacity or another, to spend 20 years or more in an unestablished capacity before becoming established, and then to find that, when he retired at the end of his career, none of that unestablished service counted for pension. He was only pensioned on the basis of what was called his established service.
For 40 years I have held, and have passionately proclaimed, that that differentiation between unestablished and established service was complete and utter humbug. If I employ a servant from the age of 20 to the age of 60, and the time comes for her to go into retirement, there is an obligation on me to do something about her maintenance in her old age. I do not escape that obligation by saying, "It is perfectly true you have been with me 40 years, but for 20 of those years you were unestablished. Therefore, I have no obligation to you in respect of those 20 years, but only in relation to the 20 years to which I have attached an adjective and called

'established.' "Although the 1947 Act did for the first time, enable half the unestablished service to count—in some but not all circumstances—it is still the case that a substantial proportion of the service of large numbers of public servants continues to be disregarded when the time comes to assess the amount of their pension. That, I still affirm, is wrong, and we ought to put it right. This Bill provides an opportunity to do so.
There is another injustice, which is quite small by comparison with the two big issues I have so far mentioned, but which is extremely important to the individuals who are affected by it. It relates to service in the First World War. When that war came, candidates were being drawn from various examinations, and appointed to posts in the public service. If, after their appointment, they then volunteered for the Armed Forces, or if they were called up from 1916 onwards under the Conscription Acts, their service while with the Colours counted towards Civil Service superannuation. No dispute or complaint arises in relation to them. But there were other men who had passed their Civil Service examination at the time war came, but had not yet been appointed to posts in the public service. Many of them did not wait for the war to come. They became Territorials, with the result that on the first day of the war they were summoned to the Colours, and spent four or five years, as the case might be, with the Armed Forces. None of their period of service with the Armed Forces has been allowed to count on the technicality that they had not been appointed to a Civil Service post.
The reason they were not so appointed was because they were already in the Army, having joined the volunteers, and having been mobilised. These men have been deprived, on that technicality, of the opportunity of counting for pension the three, four or five years, or whatever the period was, which they spent in the Armed Forces. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe said, it would be an inducement to people to go into the Army if Colour service were in future allowed to count—and I agree with what he said on that point—I affirm that the denial of the opportunity to count those years of service in the case of the men I have mentioned is a positive deterrent to anyone contemplating joining the Armed Forces. I ask the Financial Secretary to


see that that is put right when we reach the Committee stage.
I turn from what the Bill ought to have contained, but does not—and that phrase describes comprehensively what I have had to say up to now, that it ought to have included all sorts of things to put the situation right, but does not include them—to what it does. Perhaps from this point onwards I can assume a slightly less minatory note. I welcome the provision for pensions for widows and orphans which this Bill makes. Up to now, with the single exception of the recent provision which the Financial Secretary mentioned, whereby a man could allocate part of his pension, but in circumstances in which only about 7,000 have done so, the dependants of the civil servants who have died in harness have received nothing but a lump sum amounting in round figures to about a year's salary. The wife and family were thereafter left completely unaided so far as the Civil Service was concerned, although they might be aided by the social services. If a man retired on pension, and then died, his pension died with him, and his wife and family were left completely unprovided for.
I know, as does every Civil Service colleague in the House, that this absence of pensions for widowers, widows and children, has been the occasion of many a tragedy, and not only in the lower grades. Without mentioning names, I will refer to a case which came to my notice a little while ago. There is still living in England today the widow of a Permanent Secretary of one of our great Departments, who died some years ago. He died in circumstances in which nothing came to the wife, apart from the ordinary one year's pay by way of gratuity. That good lady has been kept going, for many years past, on the kindness of one of those newspaper proprietors who are so frequently abused in this House. It is not right that the widow of a distinguished public servant should be dependent for continued existence upon charity, however well intentioned it may be.
I welcome this Bill as beginning the first of the provisions for pensions for the widows and children of civil servants who die. But could we not give the option to come into this scheme—after all, it

is a contributory scheme—to people who have gone from the Service? The Financial Secretary said that it was impossible. I ventured to interrupt him and say that it might be impossible, but why? We have not had an answer to that question, and I assert that it is perfectly possible. Government Departments know the whereabouts of every retired public servant who is drawing a pension from the public funds. They must know that in order to be able to pay the pension. It would be perfectly possible to send a circular letter to those men, whether they retired before 1945 or after, and say to them, "This scheme has been adopted and we are now giving you the option to come into it, so far as the provision for wives and dependants is concerned, if you want to."

Mr. George Thomas: But if they have not the money they are unlucky.

Mr. Brown: Is that any reason why we should deny the opportunity of coming in to those who either have, or can somehow find, the money? I think the least that we can do is to give that option to the people who have got the money.
I welcome the provision for retirement at an age earlier than the normal retiring age of 60. But I am one of those of whom the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway spoke when he said he doubted whether 50 was the right age. For about 40 years I have been preoccupied with the problem of the square pegs in round holes in the public service. However justified that preoccupation was in regard to the old civil servants, when it was very largely a simple administrative machine, it is doubly important with every extension that is made in the functions of the State. In the public service of today, with nationalised industries, and with more industries scheduled for nationalisation as time goes on, it is vitally important to get square pegs out of round holes in the interests of the whole community.
In the past it has been practically impossible to do that with the public service. It could not be done, because any civil servant, who voluntarily retired, forfeited the whole of his pension rights, however long he had been in the Service. What used to happen—and still happens—was that by the time a man had found


that he had no vocation in the Civil Service, his acquired pension rights were too considerable for him to risk throwing them away by voluntary retirement. Any number of people who have no real vocation for the work have stayed on, functioning at perhaps a 60 per cent. level of efficiency, who would be very much better out of the way and their places occupied by someone with a real interest in the job.
We have positively discouraged the voluntary retirement of square pegs, and we have made it impossible to get rid of them by sacking them. If a civil servant develops the amiable habit of batting his superior over the head, or is dishonest in dealing with public money, of course he can be sacked. And on occasions of that kind sacking takes place. But short of that, it is practically impossible to sack a civil servant. No head of a Department throws a man out on the street, knowing that dismissal will involve the total loss of pension rights, unless the offence is very grave indeed. The result is not only a deterrent to voluntary retirement, but it is extremely difficult for Departments to get rid of people, even though they are functioning at considerably less than 100 per cent. efficiency.
I have held, and still hold, that the solution to that problem is to allow anybody to go, at any time, with the proportion of the pension that he has earned to that date. That simple rule would result in more voluntary retirements than any other step which I can think of. It would make the practice possible of retiring people compulsorily, in order to improve the efficiency of the Service, and possible for the first time in the history of the public service. I have advocated that for 40 years past. This Bill does not do it, but it does begin to introduce the principle, at any rate during the last 10 years of a man's official life. It says that after he has reached 50 the Department can sack him, if it is in the interests of efficiency, giving him his appropriate proportion of accrued pension rights.
It says also that a man can go voluntarily. But if he does he will not actually start to draw his pension until he reaches the age of 60; although there is a Clause here, as the Financial Secretary said, which excepts cases where hardship would demand that something

should be done. Does not the Financial Secretary see that if the pension cannot actually be drawn for 10 years after the man retires that will act as another deterrent to his going? It means for all practical purposes that he cannot go unless he has some resources to carry him over the period between the date when he goes and the date when he reaches the age of 60.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member should remember that we do not want people to come in and go out of the Civil Service after a few years. We do want them to stop, providing they are efficient. We do not want to make it easy for them to say, "I am fed up, I want to get out; after all, I shall get all the pension that there is."

Mr. Brown: No, we do not want that altogether, but the right hon. Gentleman himself is proposing in this Bill to take powers to dismiss them after the age of 50. I am suggesting that there are two wings to the problem. One is the wing of voluntary retirement, and the other is the wing of compulsory retirement, and both should be invoked. Any man who wishes to go from the public service after he has done 30 years ought not to be kept in. From a business point of view it is folly to keep an unwilling man after he has done 30 years. If we provide that he is not to have any pension until 10 years afterwards, we inhibit—

Mr. Assheton: May I ask the hon. Member after how many years would he bring this into operation? Would it be right that a man should leave after he had been 10 years in the Civil Service and had all his training and so on?

Mr. Gallacher: Does it apply to the ordinary worker? Is the hon. Member referring to the ordinary worker?

Mr. Brown: If I did, I should be completely out of Order. It does so happen that we are discussing a Bill dealing with public servants, and I cannot refer to anybody other than public servants without breaking the rules of Order. With regard to the question by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), I think that there is no fundamental solution for this except allowing a person to go at any time. If a man is retained in any job against his will,


he does not give good service. I should be very much happier if the figure of 40 were substituted for the figure of 50. I hope that when we get to the Committee stage it will be possible to alter the Bill in that sense.
I welcome the provision that officers who retired on health grounds with not less than 10 years' service will be treated, for the purpose of computing their pension, as if they had put in 20 years. This is a distinct improvement in the present situation, and it is very welcome. Must we limit that provision, however, to people who come into the service in the future? Can we not find out the people who have already gone? This provision is an admission that to calculate the pension only on the basis of 10 years' service results in an utterly inadequate pension. Otherwise we should be proposing to increase it. Can we not find out the people who have already gone out on these inadequate retiring allowances, and give them the benefit of the Clause? I hope that, when we come to the Committee stage, we shall be able to agree to find these men and give them the benefit. There is nothing physically impossible about doing so.
There is another category of people whose position is left unremedied by the Bill. When the war came we were short of civil servants, while the volume of work expanded with terrific rapidity. In order to get through that emergency, the Government encouraged civil servants to stay beyond the normal retiring age of 60 or 65, if they were fit. It also invited men who had retired on pension, and were still capable of rendering a contribution, to come back and work in Whitehall. A substantial number of pensioners responded to what they conceived to be the need of the country, and they came back, although they were under no obligation to do so.
When they came back we treated them shamefully because of an old Act of Parliament, passed in 1834, which laid it down that when a Civil Service or State pensioner came back from retirement to do a Government job the amount of his pension must be deducted from the rate of pay he received for the work that he did. I understand that the same principle was applied to the teachers. All injustices are tried out on the Civil

Service, and then are extended to the civil-service-once-removed.
I was not knocking around in 1834. And it may be that Clause 20 of that Act was designed to stop a racket. It may be that, in the somewhat disordered condition of the public service of that day, somebody had hit on the bright idea of drawing pension and pay in perpetuity, and that a Section in an Act of Parliament was necessary to prevent it. I do not know. All that I know is that it was inappropriate to invoke that 110-year-old Act of Parliament to prevent the retired pensioner who came back at the request of the Government from receiving the rate for the job in addition to the pension which he had already earned. I would like to see a Clause in the Bill to repeal Section 20 of the Act of 1834, so far as those men are concerned.
All the points I have mentioned seem to be rather more than Committee points, and to be points of substance. But there is a final point to which I would draw the attention of the House. Taking the Civil Service as a whole, the main avenue of recruitment up till now has been by competitive examination at the school-leaving ages. If we wanted clerks, we took the secondary school-leaving age. If we wanted executive officers, we took the intermediate school-leaving age. If we wanted first division men, administrative class officers, we took the university-leaving age. That has been a suitable method in relation to the Civil Service in the past. It meant that almost everybody coming into the Civil Service would be able to put in about 40 years' service.
But the character of the public service is changing with sharp rapidity under our very eyes. More and more jobs are now having to be created in the public service which cannot be filled by boys or girls at the school-leaving age. There are jobs requiring prior and anterior scientific education, or long business experience. The more industries we nationalise, the more necessary will it be to recruit people at well above the ordinary school-leaving age. If we are to get them in—and we must have them—we ought to make some provision to ensure that when they reach the age of 60 they do not go out on an inadequate pension because they have come into the public service only at a


fairly late stage in life. We must develop the instrument of giving "added years" to ensure that such men go out with a pension which is not completely inadequate.
There are other points which I should like to raise but which seem more appropriate to the Committee stage. Therefore I will stop. I will only say that so far as the Bill goes, its provisions commend themselves to me. To suppose that the Bill puts the superannuation problems of the Civil Service upon a just or upon a final basis would be a complete illusion. I hope very much that the Bill will not merely be amended in detail in Committee, but that it will be sharply amended in its whole conception and in substance, before we leave it, under the impression that we have done the right thing in regard to superannuation in the public service.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I do not propose to go into all the details of the points that have been raised by hon. Members who have preceded me. I was glad to hear the Financial Secretary say that a large measure of agreement in regard to the Bill had been reached upon the National Whitley Council, a body which is well qualified to deal with these matters. I think it was recognised at a meeting of that council that the staff side were not completely satisfied and that there were omissions, as the Financial Secretary has pointed out. There was however an agreement that staff were free to take action to raise the matters in the House. I do not think that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) represents the position if he says that this was the final conception and that the Government representatives had urged that nothing more could be said.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend indicate that many points would be examined in Committee. I was gratified to hear from the Front Bench opposite an indication to the same effect. The hon. Member for Rugby also intimated that he expects much examination of the Bill in Committee. I hope that many points will be there fully examined. I agree, and I am sure that other hon. Members will agree, with the hon. Member for Rugby that we do not like to draw a line

and see some people left out in the cold. I met an old colleague today who is celebrating his 85th birthday. Do we go back 20 years, 30 years or 40 years? There is something to be said for the suggested review of the position of those who have left the service.
The hon. Member for Rugby referred to re-employed pensioners, and he rightly pointed out that although they came back in the wartime to help the Service, if their pension plus their earnings exceeded their pre-retirement earnings the pension was reduced. I never could see the justice of that arrangement, because the men have done 20, 30 or 40 years' service and it seems to me that they are entitled to keep their pension in full. There should be a review so that service given during the war could count for pension. It has been suggested, and hon. Members may think, that every civil servant comes into the service at about 20 years of age and then works until he is 60 when he retires on half pay—with 40/80ths of his pay as a pension. In the branch of the service with which I am familiar, the pension on the average is based probably upon 20 years' and not 40 years' service. Half of the men have served with the Colours, giving the best years of their lives to the country. If that service could be recognised, it would be a great help to those men. I hope, therefore, that the examination in Committee will be thorough, and that it will be possible to make this Bill more comprehensive.
I shall not dwell upon the question of widows' pensions. I have no doubt there are many pensioners who will be glad of the opportunity to come within the scope of this scheme. There are, however, tens of thousands who simply will not have the money necessary to enable them to come within the scheme. Just as the hon. Member for Rugby referred to those who have a grievance under the Pensions Increases Act, something more will eventually have to be done in respect of the present scheme. Perhaps something could be done for those men who are on very low pensions through having given the best years of their lives serving with the Colours.
I should like to say a few words about the counting of Colour service. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Superannuation Act, 1834. I believe that that is the Act which says that the


effect of one period of time cannot count for two pensions. If, therefore, a man serves with the Colours for nine or 12 years, he receives no Service pension for that period. In time of war he is called to the Colours; he serves and then returns to civil life. That further service may have made him eligible for pension, but the Act says that one period of time cannot count for two pensions, and the man must make up his mind whether he will have a military pension or a civil pension; if he decides on the latter he will have to sacrifice his military pension. Why cannot the Minister give that man the option of combining his Colour service and his civil service so that he may have an adequate pension when he retires? That would seem to me to be fair.
It is not proper for me now to discuss the question of recruitment to the Services, but I ask the Government to think more carefully about short-term service with the Colours. Those responsible for employment in civil life ought to have a real regard for the interests of the men who have served with the Colours, instead of ignoring them, allowing them to become nobody's responsibility and, indeed, being inclined to look down upon these men who in their youth have served with the Colours. I think that to a large extent that attitude has now disappeared, but still the Government ought to do something in that respect. When men serve a short period of service with the Colours and return to civil life, their service with the Colours should not be ignored. Surely, there can be an allocation of the cost as between the War Office and the civil side. That is a very old grievance, and I hope the Government will consider it, if only from the point of view of helping recruitment. As they know, there is difficulty in recruiting postmen; it would help if recognition were given to service with the Colours.
Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether "pension" includes "gratuity"? Under the 1859 Act a pension is based upon one-sixtieth of a man's pay multiplied by his years of service. Under the later Act of 1909, it is one-eightieth. The difference between one-sixtieth and one-eightieth provides a gratuity on retirement, on the assumtion that a man might live 12 years after he retires. Is. The

gratuity not pension? That is very important. I understand that a man cannot have a gratuity if he retires voluntarily, say at the age of 50. If a man had an opportunity to join his sons or daughters in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, a gratuity would help. Therefore, that provision ought to be reconsidered.
I am inclined to take the view that a gratuity is part of a pension. A gratuity is described as "an additional allowance," but I understand that an additional allowance will not be granted in the case of voluntary retirement, although it will be in the case of medical disqualification. Why not let us sweep aside that restriction and have a rational system? I do not take the view that every man and woman in the Civil Service wants to leave at the age of 30, 40 or 50, but there is a case for optional retirement. Let us make retirement optional from a given age, say 50 or 55, and when a man decides to leave let him go with his pension and gratuity.
I shall not dwell upon war service; I think the hon. Member for Rugby made the point quite clear. I do not see why service during the 1939–45 war should be allowed to count to some extent, while service in the 1914–18 war is not allowed to count. There are many complications concerning men who, because they were serving with the Colours, could not take part in examinations at home and compete for appointments. In that respect, too, there is great need for careful consideration in Committee.
I pay my sincere tribute to the Financial Secretary and to the Government for their recognition of part-time service as something which can be reckoned for pension purposes. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), when he was Assistant Postmaster-General, opened the door for these men to progress to establishment. The former Member for Woolwich, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, when he was Postmaster-General, opened that door wider. Those two men rendered great service to the Post Office, to the public and to these men who had been under-employed for 20, 30, and even 40 years. I do not think that the recognition of the service as to one-quarter is adequate. The great majority of these men work for 24 hours and more weekly. As was suggested,


there is a case for changing the one-quarter to one-half, but I prefer to put it in this way: these men can work for 12 hours, in some instances, and some up to 36 hours a week. It does not seem just to say to a man who is giving 36 hours that he can count only one-quarter and to a man who is giving 18 hours that he can count one-quarter. Equity demands something better.
These part-time officers whom I have in mind, the auxiliary postmen, were the trained and regular reserve of the Post Office. After notice of a given period they could be required to perform a full-time duty. Year after year many of these men performed full-time duties for short or long periods. If that full-time service were aggregated they would have a very good case for more favourable treatment. In justice and equity that ought to be done. I say that because the hours of attendance of these men can be changed under certain conditions at the will of the Post Office, and the men might lose private employment for which they would get no compensation. That position should be examined. I hope that in Committee we shall see some real improvement achieved.
On the question of these part-time officers described as assistant postmen, this is really scandalous treatment of whole-time officers. Under the Superannuation Acts the phrase used is not "full-time" but "whole-time." These men described as assistant postmen, to give the impression that they only assist. Their service was whole time but they could also be employed for full time for four, six, or nine months of the year, but that service is not permitted to count for pension. During the term of service as an assistant postman a man may be performing considerable full-time duties. From time to time down the years this matter has been discussed. I may be correct in saying that the administrative officers of the Post Office were in agreement with the views expressed on behalf of the staff, though I do not know. The Post Office have told us, "We have no records and therefore we cannot recognise the full-time service of some of these men." The men concerned have the records but their records were not accepted. One can imagine the feeling of a man who has served with the Colours and given the best years of his youth

who returns and goes through the fictional grade of assistant postman, which is a whole-time post, and then finds that in virtue of that he loses pensionable service. That last time we discussed this matter with the administration they would not accept one case because they had not got the records though the men had.
I consider that the Government are making a great mistake in not recognising the claim for added years of service when they recruit men with professional qualifications. The Government must make the service attractive. If it were in Order for me to discuss the Chorley Report, I could make out a very strong case for added years, but I leave it that if we are to get the best type of men the Government must give recognition in the form of added years, especially when they need men with high qualifications in the interests of the service and in the interest of the public. The Government should be prepared if not to count one year as the equivalent of two, at least to give some weight to the time these men have spent in gaining their qualifications and proving their worth to such an extent that the Civil Service is anxious to recruit them.
About gratuities. These are paid under Section 4 of the Act of 1887. I am a strong supporter of the Government. I have great admiration for them, but I wish to goodness that they would give up the 1887 Act and replace it with something a little more modern. That Act talks of £1 or one week's pay. I have no doubt that when the Act was passed £1 was probably higher than a week's pay. My knowledge of Post Office history tells me at that period £1 would be—I almost used an adjective—nearly two weeks' pay. Today £1 means six packets of cigarettes. Why should we maintain this provision? It really is ridiculous. I should like to see it wiped off the slate. The time has come when the Government ought to be prepared to pay one month's pay for each year's service, or one-tenth. I am certain that we can find a basis of agreement. This is a hurtful grievance, and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to do something about it.
I welcome the Bill. It is another instalment of what this Government is doing to recognise the worth of the Civil Service, and to reach down, not to the man with £2,000 or £3,000, but to the man


whose earnings are only 30s. or 40s. a week. It is true that, when we look at some of the figures here, the pensions are very small, and, of course, they very often reflect upon the lower wages. For example, I am not so optimistic about the number of men coming within this scheme. We have these long incremental scales still in the service. When a man marries and has years to go before he reaches the next one, I cannot see him being able to make any contribution. He has to make his decision between serving the period before coming on to the establishment or getting married, and my friend was in some difficulty about it. It is what I might call the breach of promise period, and it is possible that many an engagement may not lead to marriage. For the young people in the service, unlike those in outside industry, who receive their maximum when qualified, there is going to be some hardship, and I am not at all sure that they will be able to take advantage of these conditions. I would rather see an improvement take place not so much there as in cutting down these long incremental scales, which are out of date and are only a provocation to the young men and women of today.
Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill and the improvements suggested in it, though I hope that in Committee we shall have a thorough examination in detail which will make this Measure more comprehensive. I hope that the Government will also be able to make some concessions in getting rid of some of these old grievances, the miserable gratuity, the old assistant postman and the auxiliary question, and that they may wipe them out, and, by doing so, stimulate a greater interest in the service. I know that tens of thousands of men and women in the services will be very grateful if the Government on this occasion will bring to an end some of these old grievances which still hurt.

5.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I should like to say that I welcome this Bill. I served for 27 years in the public service and retired without any pension at all. That was the rule in my day—40 years' service and nothing at all. Therefore, I sympathise very strongly with any action

of the Government which enables people leaving the service to have some mark of appreciation of the work they have done by way of a pension.
I gather that this Bill is welcomed by the Civil Service, and I hope very much that it will become an Act of Parliament, but I feel that the question of war service that has been raised this afternoon is one that should most certainly be considered in Committee. It is only fair and reasonable that civil servants who have war service, whether in the years 1914–18 or during the last war, should receive full pensions for such service. It seems to me unfair that men who sacrificed their careers, as they certainly did in 1914 when they joined the Armed Forces—because I understand that recruitment for the Civil Service went on for some time after the war began—and who, but for their war services, would most certainly have been in the Civil Service considerably earlier, should be penalised as they would be under the Bill as it now stands.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act, 1949.
2. Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1949.
3. Savings Banks Act, 1949.
4. Export Guarantees Act, 1949.
5. Minister of Food (Financial Powers) Act, 1949.
6. National Theatre Act, 1949.
7. American Aid and European Payments (Financial Provisions) Act, 1949.
8. Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1949.
9. Education (Scotland) Act, 1949.
10. Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949.
11. Clydebank Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1949.

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION BILL

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

5.55 p.m.

Sir C. Headlam: I had almost completed what I had to say when the interruption took place. I only want to emphasise as strongly as I can the hope that a recognition of war service will be given by the Government in this Bill and that an Amendment to that effect will be produced in Committee.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I have listened with very great interest to the informed speeches given to the House this afternoon by hon. Members who themselves have been members of the Civil Service. It is not unfitting, I believe, that the voice of somebody who has not been in the Civil Service should be heard in a Debate of this character. I join in the tribute which my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) so rightly paid to the members of the Civil Service. We are a fortunate country to have people who give us such service. It is obvious that when the State employs a great body of people many difficulties are bound to crop up from time to time. But the Civil Service has long-standing grievances, one of which was referred to by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam).
I wish to refer to the right which is now being given to civil servants—a pension for their dependants, for their widows, or for orphans. A man has no greater anxiety when nearing the end of his active service in a profession than the knowledge that if anything happens to him, his widow or his children will be unprovided for. It is elementary justice that provision should now be made for a contributory scheme which will protect these people.
I am interested because the teaching profession suffers from exactly the same defect at the present time. It is possible for a teacher, when reaching the end of his service, to decide to allocate a part of his pension for his widow, but only for his widow. That makes a serious incursion into the pension to which he has contributed, and it is in no small contribution. It means a life of hardship for

the man and his wife, and it is a gamble as to which of them will die first. I wish to assure my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that now that justice is being done in this regard for the civil servant, they may be sure that the teaching profession will be looking for a similar recognition for their members also.
I have received a number of letters from my constituents, for the City of Cardiff is now a great centre where civil servants are employed on a large scale. It has become the Whitehall of the provinces, and a tremendous number of these people are classified as unestablished. Like the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), I can never understand the reasoning by which a person is rated as unestablished after 20 years' service. On Friday last I had a meeting in my constituency at which a man stood up and told me that he had served for 25 years and yet was not recognised as being an officially established civil servant. I cannot conceive what logic lies behind it. Undoubtedly there is some lawyer's reason somewhere for this remarkable definition on the part of the Government.
I am glad of the improvements which I know have taken place as a result of the work of my hon. Friends who represent civil servants and of the Government's interest in this regard. It would, however, be a fine gesture on the part of the Government if they could meet the request which has been made so eloquently by my hon. Friends and, indeed, by hon. Members from the other side of the House, for service in the 1914–18 war to be recognised. I understand that at the beginning of the 1914–18 war recruitment for the Civil Service was not stopped, and that those who had already passed the open examination but who were unable to take up their appointments in the Civil Service because they were in the Colours are unable to count their time, while those who were not recruited because they were unfit for service are allowed to count their time. This is an obvious anomaly which cannot affect a very large number of people. It is only sound common sense and clear justice that the Government should, in the Committee stage, meet my hon. Friends on this point.
I have received correspondence today about the gratuity which it is suggested shall be paid to people with short service.


My correspondence has been of a varied character, as it usually is, but in this case there are people who express a warm appreciation of the reduction of the period from 15 years to seven years, while there are others who have written to suggest that the amount is still pitifully small and unworthy of the service which these people will have rendered. This also might be regarded as a Committee point which we need not develop fully this afternoon, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the need for giving those people who serve in the unestablished category a sense that they have had a square deal. At present there is a real sense of frustration and of grievance. This Bill will go far towards wiping it out, but by a little more generosity in the Committee stage I believe my right hon. Friend can crown this Act with even greater glory than it possesses at the present time.

6.4 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think every speaker in this Debate so far, with the exception of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas), has either been a civil servant or has served at the Treasury. It may, perhaps, be wondered why an ex-Regular soldier should dare to take part in a Debate which is so very specialised, but I do so for three main reasons. I do so, first, because I believe it is very important that we should realise that service to the State is not only done in the form of the Civil Service but is also done in a military way, and I also believe that the differentiation which has existed over such things as we are discussing today has led to many of the complaints which have been aired in this Debate.
I refer, in particular, to Colour service. I have long had a great admiration for the state of affairs which has existed for many years in France where anyone who serves the State, whether militarily or in a civil capacity, is looked upon as a servant of the State with equal status, and if his services are no longer required in one branch he is transferred to another. I believe we have something to learn in this matter, and that grievances of this kind, which have existed over many years, that in regard to Colour service in particular, would have been obviated had we decided to try to adopt the French system.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman feels that this is a question which could possibly be considered in connection with this Bill, but I do believe that this differentiation is giving rise to a great deal of the unhappiness which has been aired in this Debate. When hon. Members opposite charge this side, as the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) has charged us, with making derogatory remarks suggesting that there were too many civil servants, I feel the natural comeback to that should be that hon. Members opposite are inclined to criticise Governments for having too many soldiers. After that, I think we might call it quits for today.
So far as we are concerned, we want to make service to the State as good a service as it can possibly be. There is a lesson which I do not think even the Minister of Defence, nor the Secretary of State for War have yet learned, though I learned it while I was in the Army. It is a lesson which I hope the Financial Secretary will bear in mind throughout the Debates which will take place on this Bill. It is that if you want to make anything work well it is of cardinal importance that you should first of all get the cadre or whatever it may me, the organisation at the head, satisfied in their work. The last time some of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they instituted a Royal Commission on the Civil Service. It was known as the Tomlin Commission and in its Report there were various recommendations. In the light of some of the things which have been said in today's Debate I thought it might be of interest if I read some of those recommendations, in particular those which concern a superannuation scheme on a contributory basis. I notice that the Commission said:
We have considered whether it would be desirable that the existing 236,000 established civil servants should be brought within the new system.
The Report went on:
We think that it would be undesirable to attempt to enforce so large a change in conditions of service.
I think the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) was a Member of that Commission, which perhaps explains her absence from today's Debate. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to go a good deal


further than that Royal Commission proposed, she cannot approve the Bill.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Would the hon. and gallant Member like to tell the House what he is seeking to prove from the quotation which he is reading, because it is not clear to me.

Major Legge-Bourke: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I am quoting from the Royal Commission under Lord Tomlin, which reported in 1931. The reference is Command Number 3909 of 1931. Continuing on the point I was making, the Commission thought it was undesirable to attempt to enforce so large a change in conditions. They went on:
If the contributory schemes recommended are adopted, persons pensionable thereunder and paying contributions will be serving alongside of persons pensionable under the existing system, and the net remuneration of the former will be less than that of the latter. This disadvantage is unavoidable, but we do not regard it as an objection of much substance. Changes of this kind are frequently made in outside superannuation schemes, and it is understood that in practice no difficulty results.
I hope we shall have overcome those difficulties in this Bill by the time of its Third Reading. Like hon. Members opposite we shall deal with it in Committee to the smallest detail.
This Report deals with Colour service in paragraph 687, to which I would refer the right hon. Gentleman. If hon. Members opposite blame past Governments for not having done something about it they will find one of the reasons for that in that Report. I think it is scandalous that something has not been done about it before. I have suggested a way in which the difficulty may be overcome. If we look upon all service for the State as one, whether it is military or civil service, and if we have a pension scheme for one part similar to that of the other parts we may put this business on a sensible basis and wash out many of these complaints.
I want to ask one or two questions about the Bill. I have a question arising out of the Report of the Committee on Higher Civil Service Remuneration, Command Paper 7635. The committee stated in paragraph 41 of their report:
Another problem is raised by the fact that certain classes of civil servants (e.g., doctors and lawyers) do not as a rule enter the Service

until they have had some postgraduate experience in other fields, and thus do not serve for long enough to qualify for maximum pension. Special arrangements have been made in exceptional cases, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1946, to credit late entrants with 'added years' for superannuation purposes; we think those arrangements ought to be extended more widely.
I am not clear whether this Bill extends those arrangements more widely. If it does not, why does it not? The postgraduate experience for a particular branch of the Civil Service may take a long time to acquire. It is most important that those people who obtain it should not be victimised because they choose to go into such a branch. I concede, of course, that they know beforehand what the conditions will be, but I do not see why they should not benefit as much as the others.
I welcome in particular Clause 2 and Clause 34. I believe it is most important to ensure that we do not induce people to stay in the Service simply to qualify for superannuation. I believe that the arrangements under this Bill will avoid that. I am not quite happy about the age of 50. I am not quite certain why that particular age has been chosen. Nor, indeed am I sure why some of the other ages or periods of service have been fixed—as, for example, in Clause 8—of 40 years, 60 years, and 45 years. We shall obviously have to go into those questions in Committee. It seems to me that these figures have been fixed rather arbitrarily without any sort of principle to guide their selection, and I should welcome more information on that subject.
I am also interested in Clause 35, because it links—and there are other Clauses which do this, I think—the number of years' service with rights which, I believe, ought to depend upon the amount of contributions that have been put in. I am not clear from what the right hon. Gentleman said whether this scheme is to be worked out on an actuarial basis or upon the basis of the term of service. I should have thought it ought to have been actuarial.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is both.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for the interruption. If it is both, I think it is very important to ensure that the individual concerned is not made to contribute an amount which he will never


receive back in the event of his leaving the Service for some reason or another.
The right hon. Gentleman has brought me now to my second reason for speaking in this Debate. I followed the National Insurance Act in its course through the House, and I am extremely interested in it. I believe that there are discrepancies between the principles of that Act and the principles of this Bill. Those discrepancies are almost inexplicable. Under the National Insurance Act we have an Exchequer contribution from taxation, in just the same way as in this Bill, and also contributions by the individual. Over and over again, when I tried to move Amendments to the National Insurance Bill, I was told that that Bill was worked out actuarially. I think we have to examine these discrepancies in detail.
This brings me to the third reason why I am speaking in this Debate. I think we ought to examine those discrepancies in detail because I am most anxious that we should not do anything which is unfair to the ordinary run of individuals in the country simply in order to benefit members of the Civil Service. I believe, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that our Civil Service is a very good one. I think the Government are taxing it to the extreme at the moment, and that it is most important that they should do something to keep it happy. This is not the only way in which they ought to improve conditions, but this Bill is a step in the right direction. At the same time, I do not want it to be felt that civil servants are unduly favoured by the Bill. That was felt by a writer to "The Times" on 22nd February, who said that there were reasons for supposing civil servants were unduly favoured by the Bill. He wrote:
In comparing the standing and remuneration of a senior civil servant with that of a Minister of the Crown or a professional or business man, it is the fact that the civil servant is entitled to a generous pension that makes his position immeasurably superior to that of a man whose gross income may be rather more than his own but who has no pension. Unless the professional or business man had acquired capital before the war it would not be possible for him to save an adequate sum for retirement under the present burden of taxation. There is not the slightest prospect that he will be able to save enough to retire approaching the pension of a senior civil servant who does not even have to con-

tribute to his pension. The fact is that venal taxation has increased the value of pensioned jobs beyond all comparison.
I think there are other people besides the writer of that letter who feel that way, and that is why I am so very anxious to ensure that the measures we adopt to meet many of the justified complaints by civil servants are not unfair to the rest of the community. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman has a word with the Minister of National Insurance he will find that rules regarding what is considered part-time service and what is considered as part-time employment, compared with the present rules at pensionable age under the National Insurance scheme, show a great difference in principle—a difference which, in my opinion, is quite unjustified.
There is one provision in this Bill that I want to criticise very strongly, because I believe it to be utterly wrong. Why, under Clause 3, may a widow not remarry without fear of losing her pension? I know it is the theory that people should not receive a pension from two sources at once, but I believe that a civil servant would turn in his grave if he knew that his widow was not to get her pension, to which he had contributed, just because she married somebody else—in order, perhaps, thus to find for her children a stepfather to help her bring them up. That seems monstrously unfair. I have always objected to it, whenever I have found widows' second marriages penalised like this. I think it is very often extremely cruel and cruel not only to the principal individuals concerned, but to their dependants as well.
I hope I have made clear to the right hon. Gentleman the three reasons why I am interested in this Bill. I believe most strongly that he must try to unify the State service sooner or later. Secondly, I believe he must ensure that the principles of the National Insurance scheme are brought into this scheme as well; and thirdly, I believe that he must ensure that nothing is done unfairly to the ordinary common run of individuals in this country simply in order to meet the Civil Service needs. I believe that those needs are very real needs and I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on introducing this Bill. I believe that it goes some of the way which must be gone sooner or later. I am glad


that the Bill is doing at least some of the things which ought to have been done before, and I hope that when it comes back to this House at the end of the Committee stage we shall have improved it considerably and made it a Bill which will impress the country as a whole as being absolutely fair. At the present moment I think it tends to be unfair, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would deplore that just as much as we deplore it.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I have only one point which I wish to make. I welcome the Bill very warmly, and I hope that it will have an easy and rapid passage through all its stages to the Statute Book. The great defect in pension schemes for all types of public servants in the past has been the lack of provision for widows and orphans, because the lump sum given in most of these schemes, unless the recipient occupied a very high-salaried post in the public service, was not sufficient to prevent anxiety so far as the widows and orphans are concerned. I, therefore, welcome the Bill, but I hope that steps will be taken to extend this Measure towards a wider range of public servants than the civil servants. I do not see why teachers and local government officials should not be included in a Bill of this kind.
It would seem more logical to have a Bill of this kind for the teaching profession than for civil servants, because the superannuation scheme in the teaching profession is a contributory scheme, whereas the superannuation scheme in the Civil Service is a non-contributory scheme. It is now proposed to graft a contributory scheme on to the non-contributory scheme of the Civil Service, whereas the provisions of this Bill could be applied to the teaching profession merely by extending the present rate of contribution. I am sorry that the Minister of Education has not been able to introduce a similar Bill to that which my right hon. Friend has introduced today with such clarity and persuasiveness. It is the business of the shepherd to look after his flock, and the Minister of Education, in this instance, seems rather to have neglected his flock.
I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have a kindly word with the Minister of Education and encourage him to engage in a little friendly

rivalry in well doing in this matter, so that we may have the provisions of this very useful Bill applied to the teaching profession. I am certain that the teaching profession would welcome the application of this Measure to their superannuation scheme.

6.25 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I join with other hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of this Bill. I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is present, because I should like to pay him a compliment for his advocacy of the interests of civil servants over a long period of years. I had the honour to be on the official side of the National Whitley Council for eight years, and opposite to me was the hon. Member for Rugby. I had never heard a more ardent, successful and convincing advocate of the interests of a great body of public servants than the hon. Member for Rugby was. The Civil Service of this country owes him a debt of gratitude for the constant vigilance he exercised during the years I was his opposite number on the National Whitley Council. I should like to join with other hon. Members in saying how proud we are of our Civil Service. Those of us who have travelled abroad and had the opportunity of seeing something of the Civil Service administration of other countries are always particularly proud of the efficiency and integrity of our Civil Service in the discharge of their great public duties.
I think that the Bill will need a good deal of amendment during its progress through Committee, and I am certain that the various suggestions that have been made will receive the careful and sympathetic attention of the Financial Secretary. He is one of the charming personalities in the House; he is always open to practical and helpful suggestions; and I am certain that the speeches which have been made by my hon. Friends on this side of the House will make a strong appeal to him, particularly in regard to service with the Colours—giving the soldier priority consideration in every branch of the public service when he has served his country and has a definite claim. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also give careful consideration to the unestablished civil servant. There is


a particular grievance at present between the relationship of the unestablished civil servant and His Majesty's administration, and I am certain that any amendments which are submitted during the Committee stage on that matter will receive sympathetic consideration.
I am particularly proud of the time when I was associated with Civil Service affairs. I am an old civil servant, and I served for nearly five years in one of our great Dominions. I am proud to pay a compliment to the Civil Service of our Dominions and to our own Civil Service at home. They have the same fine spirit of acceptance of responsibility, and the same high principles in carrying out the duties entrusted to them. My experience of the Civil Service in the various Dominions and throughout the Colonial Empire has been on all fours with my experience of the high standard of the character and quality of our Civil Service in this country.
I am quite certain that this Bill will give great satisfaction to a very large number of our silent citizens—the men who discharge their work from day to day faithfully and loyally. I am particularly glad that in this Bill provision has been made for the widows and children; that side of our Civil Service superannuation was sadly in need of careful consideration and improvement. I am sure that the Bill will have an easy passage through Committee, and that the Financial Secretary will sympathetically consider any practical proposals which will strengthen the Bill and make it more acceptable both from the point of the Civil Service and the mass of the public in this country who have to discharge duties to the State. In the introduction of this Measure a great wrong is being righted and improvements are being made for the benefit of those engaged in our public life and our civic life. Those of us who have been in the House for a long time are proud to be able to say a good word on behalf of a legislative proposal of this kind. I am very proud to be present this afternoon at the introduction of this Measure, and to see how well it has been received and how cordially it has been approved in its general provisions. Subject to certain modifications which must be made in Committee, I believe that the Bill is one

which in the days to come will reflect highly on the dignity and prestige of this House of Commons.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman spoke I did not know that it would be a case of one former civil servant following another. We learn something new every day in this House, and it gives me great pleasure to know that the hon. Gentleman has had experience of the great Civil Service of which he spoke so well. I share his views on the high advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) in the old days; I am not too sure that he is such a good man now as he used to be in those days. That is, of course, a personal view. However, in the days to which the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) referred, the hon. Member for Rugby certainly did great work on behalf of the Civil Service, for which we are very grateful.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I take it my hon. Friend is reflecting a political opinion and not casting a moral aspersion.

Mr. Williams: Quite so. I should not like to deal with the hon. Gentleman's morality; that is beyond me. I assure the hon. Member for Moseley that those high traditions of advocacy are being maintained in the National Whitley Council, and I think that part of this Bill is due in no small measure to the tenacity and skill in advocacy of those who followed the hon. Gentleman on the National Whitley Council.
I must be brief, because it would be unfair of me to address the House at any great length, since the ground has already been very well covered. First, let me pay my tribute to the Financial Secretary for the very clear way in which he introduced this Bill. Apart from one or two hon. Members—and I hope the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will not take it too hardly if I suggest that he has not quite understood some parts of the Bill which my right hon. Friend explained—I think the House is perfectly clear on what the Bill is about. I wish to go further, and to pay tribute to the work of the Financial Secretary, in connection with not only this Bill but its predecessors, both of which


have been of great value to civil servants and have gone some way to remove anomalies and defects in the Superannuation Acts. I am hoping that neither my right hon. Friend nor the House will regard this Bill as the final word on superannuation in the Civil Service, because I am bound to agree with the hon. Member for Rugby that, however good the provisions of this Bill, there are still many defects and anomalies to be put right if we are to do justice to the Civil Service.
I should like to deal quite briefly with the provision for widows' and orphans' pensions. This was an overdue reform. I have had a lot of experience of dealing with the cases of men who died while in the service, and I saw the effect on their dependants. It was no uncommon thing for them to have to seek outside public assistance because they were entitled to only a very small gratuity. That was by no means unusual. Here is an opportunity for those in the Civil Service to make some provision for that eventuality, and I am very glad indeed that that aspect of the problem is covered in this Bill.
If I had time I should also have liked to suggest to the Financial Secretary that the Government might reconsider the date from which this Bill can be applied. VJ-day or VE-day seems to be the effective date.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May, 1945.

Mr. Williams: I should have thought it might have been possible, for the purpose of this reform, to have gone back as far as 1939. There may be come difficulties, but I ask him to consider, between now and the Committee stage, whether there is any possibility of doing that.
I am particularly glad to see the reform proposed in Clause 32; that is, retirement on ill-health after at least 10 years' service but less than 20 years' reckonable service. In this respect there has been something very strange about Superannuation Acts in the past, and I think there is a spark of compassion and generosity in this Clause, which meets a great need to provide for those who break down by the roadside. I wish this provision had been introduced many years ago, because much distress and hardship resulted from the lack of such

a provision. Had a provision of this sort been in operation before, many of our old colleagues in the Civil Service and their dependants would have been saved considerable hardship and distress, and recourse to public assistance.
I leave that and pass to the question of retirement after reaching the age of 50. The Government are to be congratulated upon introducing this new feature into the Superannuation Acts. As my right hon. Friend said, there are two elements. First, there is the man who wants to leave the Civil Service, either because he feels he can no longer work effectively and efficiently in the service because of some psychological reason. The Government have made a great step forward in accepting, for the first time, the principle that a man may leave the Civil Service after a certain period of service without losing all the accrued benefits of the superannuation to which he has indirectly contributed.
Let me here remove one misunderstanding. Although notionally the Civil Service pension scheme is regarded as non-contributory, everyone who has been in the Civil Service knows that contributions have been made by accepting lower standards of wages and remuneration because of the superannuation and medical benefits. If any proof is required of that, hon. Members have only to read the evidence given before any arbitration tribunal connected with the Civil Service to discover that on almost every occasion the official side has reminded the members of the tribunal that at least 12½ per cent., and in some cases as much as 16 per cent., ought to be taken into consideration for superannuation benefits, and so on. Therefore, in that indirect sense, I cannot accept that they have not made a very substantial contribution to their superannuation in the past.
I am glad the principle has been established that the man who decides to go out of the service is not to lose the accrued benefits of his pension. I should not like to enter into a discussion as to what the age should be. I think there is scope for inquiry and examination here. It may be that 50 years is a little bit too high and that 45 years would be a better age, especially from the point of view of a man leaving the Civil Service, where he has reached the peak of his possibilities, to enable him to use his other qualifications in another direction. He


may be able to give excellent service in some other industry which would be equally essential to the nation. I remember a man with whom I worked in Liverpool many years ago who was such a highly skilled electrical technician that any one of the telephone companies would have taken him on immediately for their research work and for day-to-day practical electrical and technical work. He seriously considered whether he ought not to go over to them, but at the back of his mind all the time was the question why, after 25 or 30 years' service with the Government, he should deny himself the advantages of his superannuation? Under the provisions of this Bill that man would have been in a position to make that change when he reached 50 years of age.
I am also interested in this from the point of view of the man who finds it difficult under certain circumstances to hang on until he reaches retirement age. I am not thinking of the man with medical defects, because he is in a position to be discharged on medical grounds, but rather of the man with psychological reasons for leaving the Service. During my 30 years' service in the Civil Service I have seen great changes introduced into some of the Departments. In the Post Office, for instance, big changes have taken place, such as new methods of procedure and new apparatus and equipment. What has amazed me is that men and women of advanced ages, used to the old methods and old equipment, have so rapidly and efficiently adapted themselves to the changed conditions, and have been able to work almost as effectively and efficiently as some of the junior elements of the staff. But there have been casualities in this direction. the odd one here and there who, as the hon. Member for Rugby has so pertinently said, find themselves square pegs in round holes. There has been no means for dealing with that situation, except the inhuman method of discharging the man as being inefficient, which means excluding him from any penson rights.
The provision in Clause 36 as to pensionable service after the normal retirement age is a concession that is long overdue. I suggest that here, too, this provision should be made retrospect-

tive to the beginning of the war when we were appealing to Civil Service pensioners to come back and take over the duties of men who had gone into the Services. Many of them came back and gave excellent service, but they were not permitted to have their pensions in addition to the basic remuneration for the appropriate grade to which they returned. In a sense they were cheap labour to the Government at a time when their service was vitally necessary to the success of the war effort. I suggest that even now some consideration might be given to these people, because had they gone into industry they would have been paid the appropriate rate in addition to their pensions.
I wish now to say something about the unestablished civil servants. It has never made sense to me that two men can work on the same job, one being unestablished and the other being established and coming within the superannuation scheme. It is a relic of the old class days when there was a distinction made between the clerical, professional and manual workers. The sooner that disappears the better, and I was glad to hear that that is the policy of the Government. But why should those who are still in the Service be penalised because of something that happened in the past and which should never have been allowed to continue for so long? It would not cost the country much to count the full number of years. Only a comparatively small number of years would be involved in most cases. The alternative is to concentrate on the qualifying period, which I am glad to see has been reduced in many cases from 15 years to 7 years, or on the amount of the gratuity.
The other day I received some very interesting figures showing the sort of gratuities some of these people have been getting. A man in the Post Office Factory and Supplies Branch, after 61 years service—and it is a mystery to me how he survived without getting his whiskers caught up in the machine—received a gratuity of £118. Members will be disgusted, I think, that after 61 years' service to the country a man should receive a gratuity of that amount without any pension. Other examples are of a man with 43 years' service who received £196, and another of a man who received £243 after 45 years' service. I also have some


cases of temporary civil servants who have not been subsequently established. A man with a salary of £260 received a gratuity of £75 after 15 years' service, and a man with a salary of £520 received a gratuity of £150.
I apologise for having taken up so much of the time of the House. I will deal with the position of assistant postmen if I am lucky enough to serve on the Committee that will deal with this Bill. I thank the House for its interest in this matter, which affects civil servants as a whole. I think we have the basis here for a fine Superannuation Act. There is plenty more to be done, but with the interest and goodwill of this Government and the Financial Secretary there is no reason why we should not do justice to all the grades covered by this Bill.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Following the hon. Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. W. R. Williams) makes us three of a kind in a row, although I think I am doing no injustice by saying that he was the only one of the three who was clever enough to survive until he had reached his time for superannuation.

Mr. W. R. Williams: No, I did not.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I withdraw that remark if the hon. Member did not get quite to that stage. I join in what has been said by Members in most parts of the House, and especially by my right hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), in generally welcoming this Bill. I think that the many points we wish to make are rather Committee points, and are much better left to that occasion. Nevertheless, it is most important, at this stage, that established civil servants, who are having greater burdens thrust on them than ever before—which many of us hope to remove or, at least, lessen in the days to come—should have certain of their family cares removed. This is something which affects not only the civil servants, but a great many members of the professional classes who are incapable, because of present taxation, to save enough money with which to look after their wives and educate their children in the ways in which they would like them to be educated and to which they themselves have been accustomed. The Bill makes certain that

the widows and children of established civil servants will be looked after in the case of premature death of such servants.
Clause 34 deals with the premature retirement age of 50. Whether 50 is a good or bad age is not important at this stage of the Bill—we can argue about that later—but I think it is important that there should not only be a provision for compulsory retirement at this age, but that it should be linked with voluntary retirement at the same age if the person concerned so wishes. It may be that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth took the opportunity to come to this House to give service here instead of continuing for his full time in his previous job. There are people of 50 and thereabouts who may find that their talents can be more usefully employed than in continuing in the Civil Service.
Finally, I would like to reinforce what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) about Colour service being counted in establishment towards superannuation. I believe there are many such cases, which are confined not only to the last war, but to the 1914–18 war. In a case brought to my notice a person entered the Civil Service in the year 1914–15, went to the war, was fortunate enough to survive but has not been able to have that service counted towards his pension since he returned. I join in the congratulations which have been bestowed upon the Financial Secretary, who has taken a great interest in this subject, and I hope that when the Bill reaches the Statute Book it will be acceptable to all in this House and to all civil servants for whom it will do so much.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not wish to detain the House unduly, or to repeat any of the arguments put forward by other Members, but in view of the large volume of correspondence I have received from my constituents about this Bill there are one or two points I want to emphasise. Like all others who have spoken, I welcome the Bill and the recognition it gives to the legitimate claims of the Civil Service in regard to pension benefits and gratuities. There are, however, two or three blemishes in it which, I feel sure, on reconsideration in Committee, the Government will wish to remove.
The first is the failure to count unestablished service at the full rate for pensions purposes. A particularly glaring illustration of the injustice caused by the existing provisions in this respect affects a great number of people in my constituency who are telephone mechanics. They are in grades which were recognised for establishment a few years ago. Under the Bill as drafted their service before 1945 will be counted for pension purposes only at half rate, instead of the full rate. It is even worse than that because the recognition, for some reason which I am unable to understand, goes back only to 1919. The result is that a number of these telephone mechanics, some of whom have already put in 40 years' service, will be able to count for pension purposes at only half rate instead of what is recognised to be the full rate of an established grade. In some cases it means that people in this category will be even worse off under the Bill than they are today.
Let me give an illustration: a telephone mechanic entered the service of the Post Office in January, 1905. He is now 63. He was granted establishment in 1947, and if it were not for the Bill he would, normally, have had a gratuity of £278. Under the Bill he gets a reduced gratuity of £171 and a pension of £1 2s. 2d. a week. He not only loses over £100 on his gratuity, but the Bill has this other effect: it deprives him of what would otherwise be a legitimate claim to a supplemental pension. If, apart from the Bill, he had his gratuity, but no pension, he would get the ordinary old age pension and, under the generous recognition that is now given to claims for supplementary pension, he would undoubtedly get a supplemental allowance. As a result of the Bill his pension of £1 2s. 2d. a week will probably be taken into account, and he will be the loser as a result of getting his diminished gratuity. That defect can be removed in Committee if the Government are willing to recognise the principle that those who have been temporary or unestablished workers for a long time should qualify for pension calculations at the full rate and not the half rate. They have been doing the same work as those whose pensions are to be calculated on the full rate.
The second blemish on the Bill is one which has been referred to already, and

which I wish to emphasise, namely, gratuities for unestablished staff. These seem to be totally inadequate. The rate of one week's salary for each year of service produces a quite inadequate result, and I urge the Government to increase that on pension to one-tenth of the salary for each year of service, instead of one week's salary for each year of service. In this connection I ask the Government why it is necessary to exclude from the benefits of the Bill those who are over 65 years of age on 25th June, 1947. I have in my own constituency, where there happen to be a large number of Post Office employees, nine elderly people who, owing to what seems to be a purely arbitrary date, are excluded from the benefits of gratuities for unestablished staff.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In case I do not have the chance to answer all the points, I can assure my hon. Friend that this Bill benefits the recipient rather than damages his interests. It prevents him from suffering any diminution under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947.

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful for that intervention, and I am sure it will relieve the anxiety of the individuals in question, who have brought this matter to my notice and asked me to bring it to the notice of the House. I shall let the Financial Secretary have the details, but I am very gratified to know that the people I have in mind will not, in fact, be jeopardised. There are other points of a Committee nature which I shall have an opportunity of raising on the Committee stage, when I hope we can remove those blemishes to which I have drawn attention.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I apologise for not having been here during the whole of the Debate, but I am Chairman of the Welsh Labour Group and I was trying to keep them in order. I heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and I congratulate him on its clarity, particularly in relation to the technical difficulties of the subject with which he had to deal. In spite of the blemishes to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) referred, I should like to say that in its main outlines this is a really good Bill.
I happen to have had the experience of dealing over a period of years with the Teachers' Superannuation Act, which has been modelled on the Civil Service superannuation scheme. In the Teachers' Superannuation Act, as in the Civil Service scheme, one of the great weaknesses has been the provision for widows, orphans and other dependants. The death gratuity was not satisfactory, and I am glad, therefore, that the Government have come forward with a scheme to remedy that defect. I think I am right in saying that, so far as the Civil Service is concerned—and indeed, later on, as far as the teachers are concerned—an attempt was made to remedy that defect by allowing an allocation of pension. The lump sum did not provide adequate security for widows, orphans and other dependants, either to civil servants or teachers.
I heard the right hon. Gentleman mention the small number of civil servants who have taken advantage of the allocation scheme. That is also true of the teachers. The reason for this, of course, is that the pensions in these days, particularly on the lower and middle ranges of salary, do not provide a sufficient margin to allow of allocation. This scheme meets that defect. I congratulate the Government on the way they are doing it. It is far better to make provision for back service out of a lump sum than it is out of the current sum for pensions.
Apart from any details that may require to be rectified in Committee, I should like to give a whole-hearted welcome to this scheme. I will only add this—the scheme is so good for widows, orphans and other dependants of civil servants that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there will be other claims upon the Government from other organisations for the same benefits. Throughout the whole field of public service, including municipal employees and teachers, there will be a demand for a Bill like this one. When any representations are made to the Government, I hope they will give the same sympathetic hearing to those classes of public servants as they have to civil servants. I heartily congratulate the Government on the scheme they have brought in.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but if that leave is accorded I should like first of all to say how much I appreciate the very generous things that have been said from every side of the House about the Bill and my small share in it. I realise that those observations are not so much directed to me as to those who are behind me and who have done the work. As many Members will remember, this Bill has been projected for several years now and I am proud to think it has fallen to me to introduce it.
Both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been extremely eager for a Measure of this kind to reach the Statute Book. We have also to thank Mr. Day and his colleagues on the staff side of the National Whitley Council, who, along with the official side, have done their best to reach agreement. The scope of the Bill is a measure of the extent to which they found themselves in accord. We have reason to be grateful to those who have assisted the House in drafting this Bill and agreeing to its provisions.
All the points that have been raised in the Debate were brought up and discussed between the two sides of the National Whitley Council when the matter was negotiated. They have been carefully and sympathetically considered by the Government, and it is not possible within the limits of a short reply to go over all the ground that has been covered. We shall most carefully consider all the speeches and arguments we have heard, and I have not the slightest doubt that, when we reach the Committee stage, a good time will be had by all except myself and those who assist me. That is, after all, what Parliament is for, and we are anxious to see a really good Measure emerge. If during the Bill's passage through Committee, new facts can be brought to light which would help the Government to change their minds, no one will be happier than myself.
Perhaps in the two or three minutes which I have at my disposal, I might refer to the more outstanding points made during the Debate. I should say that the questions of service with the Colours, of


pensions being added to pay when someone has retired and has returned, and of how far back additional allowances should be paid to those who come back under Clauses 35 and 36, are all points which have been considered. For the benefit of those who have not realised just what the difficulties are, I should like to say this about one or two of them.
First, earnings and pension. The underlying principle of Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, is that a pension is provided to support a man when he retires. If he comes back and re-engages in his former occupation, or even in a better paid one, he should not simultaneously enjoy a salary for working and a pension which has been given him for his retirement. However, at no time are the two together abated below the salary of the job to which he returns. That should be made clear. If it were not for Section 20, we should get the curious anomaly of a man with his salary plus pension receiving perhaps £1,200 a year whereas another man in a similar post, much younger and probably much more vigorous, because he has not reached his retiring age, is working for £800. For that reason and others into which I have no time to go now, it is felt that, if a man comes back, his pension rights should be preserved, but that we should not let him, if it is a State pension and the money is being found by the taxpayer, have pay and pension at one and the same time.

Sir P. Hannon: That would apply only to non-contributory pensions but surely not to pensions on a contributory basis.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the pension is contributory so that a contract is involved, there is a different set of circumstances; but we are dealing here with pensions payable to civil servants who do not get them in respect of any contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) wanted to know whether a man who retires voluntarily under Clause 34 gets his lump sum on retirement. He does not. He gets it when he reaches his pensionable age; when he begins to draw his proportionate pension, he will also get his proportionate lump sum.
We had a very interesting discussion as to whether civil servants should be

allowed to retire at any time during their service. While I do not want to traverse the arguments, I think that, on reflection, most hon. Members will see that such retirement would lead to very curious results. The Civil Service relies to a very large extent on its senior members and without such men following the Civil Service as a career and growing up in it, we should find that a great deal of value would be lost both to the Service itself and to the community. If it were possible for a man to go out at any time without any financial hurt to himself, and later on regret it and want to come back, both he and the Service would suffer.
I do not propose to say any more now. I have a very large number of notes here, but it would be unfair to the House to attempt to go through them. Again, I thank the House for the way they have received this Measure; I hope that, as it passes through Committee, we shall be able to improve it and that it will be of benefit to the large body of men and women who serve the State well and deserve the best from the community.

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the superannuation and other benefits payable to and in respect of certain persons and to authorise the payment of allowances and gratuities to and in respect of other persons who are injured or contract diseases while employed for the purposes of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any pension, allowance, gratuity or return of contributions, with or without interest, which is payable under or by virtue of any of the provisions of that Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to any of the provisions of that Act in the sums which, under any other Act, are payable out of moneys so provided; and
(iii) any administrative expenses incurred by any Government department attributable to the passing of this Act.


so, however, that no greater amount shall be paid in any case under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, or the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944 and 1947, than would have fallen to be paid in that case if the said Act of the present Session had not passed; and

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any contributions payable under the said Act of the present Session."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION (INCOME TAX ON CONTRIBUTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That no relief shall be given under section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918, or any other provision of the Income Tax Acts providing for relief for income tax purposes, in respect of contributions towards the cost of pensions to or for the benefit of the widow, children or dependants of the contributor, being contributions made under any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the superannuation and other benefits payable to and in respect of persons who serve or have served in the Civil Service of the State or in service to which the Superannuation (Various Services) Act, 1938, applies and for certain other purposes.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Perhaps the Financial Secretary will say a word in explanation of this Motion. Looking at it without any knowledge of the background of the matter, it seems a little curious that these pensions to widows and orphans to be paid as the result of the Bill will, in the hands of the recipients, be liable to Income Tax. It is therefore a little surprising that the contributions which are paid by the persons whose dependants will eventually receive them should not be permitted to subtract the amount of the contribution from their Income Tax liabilities. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will explain why this is not to be permitted.

7.19 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is quite correct. Normally, an Income Tax allowance rebate is permitted for contributions of this kind to life assurance or to a pensions scheme. We are here proposing that, so far as civil servants who come under the scheme are concerned, no such allowance should be given. The reason is two-fold. First, some of these payments will be made out of the lump sum, others as a l¼ per cent. deduction per year from salary; yet others will be partly by one and partly by the other method. The actuaries tell us, and it is a fact, that if an Income Tax allowance were permitted under Section 32 of the 1918 Act, the incidence on the contributors would not be equal; in other words, one person would have a slight benefit over another according to whether he or she chose one method rather than another.
There is another and more important consideration, that any relief from Income Tax on these payments must diminish the amount received by the Exchequer from Income Tax. In other words, it would place an additional burden on the general body of taxpayers. The actuaries have worked out this scheme so that the employer and the employee pay equal contributions. If we allowed civil servants as a body to have, in addition, an Income Tax rebate, it would mean that the Exchequer proportion would have to be higher or that the percentage levied on the contributor would have to be more than l¼ per cent. Therefore, by agreement with the Staff Side, it was decided that Clause 48 should be inserted in the Bill; this Ways and Means Motion naturally follows from that.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONFIRMATION OF TERMS OF UNION.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Amendment in line 19, the Amendment in line 21, and the two new Clauses could conveniently be discussed together on the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert).

7.23 p.m.

Sir Alan Herbert: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the beginning, to insert "Subject as hereinafter provided."
I do not think the Committee stage of this Bill need detain us long because half of the Amendments I do not intend to press severely and the others, I have gathered privately, may be out of Order. As you rightly say, Mr. Bowles, these first two Amendments can be conveniently discussed with the two new Clauses. I would like to get it formally on the record, if only for the instruction of the members of another place to which this Bill may go, so far as I know, that these Amendments and new Clauses together propose a different solution of this difficult problem from that which was proposed in the reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading.
Briefly, the suggestion is that this House shall accept—and indeed it accepted on the Second Reading—the principle and the terms of the Bill as they appear in the Schedule to the Bill, but because we do not know enough about them and because they have not been discussed with Newfoundland, they shall be sent to the Government of Newfoundland, according to the British North America Acts, and, when they have been discussed and approved by the Parliament of Newfoundland, they shall automatically have the force of law. The difference between that suggested procedure and the procedure suggested on Second Reading is that in that case there would be no more recourse to this Parliament, and we shall have an end of it. I will not weary the Committee by repeating the arguments used on the Second Reading.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I support the Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend. As the Committee will appreciate, the new Clauses are really the basis of our argument in regard to this Measure. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman who will be answering that there is no hostility to confederation as such, but merely to the hasty and unconstitutional method of bringing about confederation. If Newfoundland wants confederation, then let the Committee accept these Amendments, which will enable a duly constituted Parliament of Newfoundland, democratically elected by the people of Newfoundland, to decide whether they want confederation or not. If this Amendment, which gives us the power to discuss the new Clauses, is accepted, and the new Clauses are accepted, that will meet our arguments and will satisfy the uneasy feeling that exists in the House of Commons and in the country regarding the state to which we are committing the people of our oldest Dominion.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I wish I could share the hope of the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) that this stage of the Bill might not take too long. Unfortunately, it falls most unhappily to me, and most unwillingly to me, to prolong the discussion a little by placing on record what I fear may be a somewhat tedious and technical argument in regard to the constitutional position about this matter as we see it. In view of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), and in view of the discussions we had in the Second Reading Debate, it was thought that we ought to make quite clear what we conceive to be the technical position.
The Amendment we are discussing, the next Amendment, and the two new Clauses which are consequential, raise a number of issues. Some of them are political, not in any party sense but in the sense that they will require the Committee to decide what it is right and expedient to do, and some of them have a legal complexion. I do not propose to say anything about the political aspects of the matter except this, that what it is sought to do now is no more than the culmination and completion of a policy which has been openly and consistently


pursued ever since 1943 and which, from time to time, has been publicly canvassed and discussed. The policy, the propriety, the expediency and legality of it was never questioned until after it had become manifest that the result of its adoption would be that the people of Newfoundland would join with the people of Canada in the great, the free and the self-governing confederation of that country.
We readily accept the view—indeed we assert the view—that however strong the case for the Bill might be on grounds of policy, nothing should induce us in these important matters affecting the relationship between the different countries in the Commonwealth—a relationship which does not rest upon the iron framework of any rigid constitution but which is founded largely in unwritten laws, in conventions, in practice and in even less tangible ties of association—to depart from the law, the practice or the spirit of our constitutional doctrines.
7.30 p.m.
One comes at once to the question of how it is said that the present Bill does or may involve some conflict with the law, the practice or the spirit of our constitution, the things that we should certainly, on both sides of the Committee, wish most strongly to maintain. As I understand it, there are said to be four ways in which we may be departing from the law or the spirit of the constitution in these matters. It is said, first, that Confederation with Canada can only be effected under Section 146 of the British Nationality Act, 1867; secondly, that what it is sought to do here involves an infringement of the Statute of Westminster, 1931; thirdly, that in view of the terms on which Responsible Government was suspended in Newfoundland in 1933, what is now being done should only be done on a request from a Legislative Assembly in Newfoundland; and finally, it is said—this is a point which has given us some anxiety and which we have considered most carefully—that the present legislation should await the advice which may be tendered to His Majesty by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland which is at present pending.
I will try not to be too technical or too long, but it is, perhaps, important that a view should be placed on record

in regard to these matters. I will deal with each of these matters in the order in which I have stated them. There really is nothing in the first point standing alone. Section 146 of the 1867 Act was in a sense an enabling Section. It enabled Her Majesty, by an Order in Council and without the necessity of any further statute or legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament, to admit Newfoundland into the Canadian Confederation on a request from the Legislatures of the two countries; but it really cannot be suggested that thereafter that was the only and exclusive means by which union between Newfoundland and Canada could have been effected. All that the Statute did was to provide a method short of legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament by which union could be brought about, but that legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament could still have brought about exactly the same result is really, I venture to think, not in doubt at all.
At that time, as hon. Members will recall, the doctrine of the sovereign independence of the different Commonwealth countries had not arisen at all. The United Kingdom Parliament enjoyed a completely unfettered sovereignty over all the Dominions, as we called them at that time, and the United Kingdom Parliament could at that time, without any question, have passed another Statute immediately afterwards effecting a complete union between Canada and Newfoundland and totally disregarding the provisions of the 1867 Act. Indeed, in 1915 Parliament did, as a matter of fact, pass another Statute, which, notwithstanding the 1867 Act, materially altered the representation which Newfoundland would have had in the Senate of the Canadian Constitution if union had in fact been brought about. So much for the position under the 1867 Act. I venture to suggest that there really is no possible doubt at all about that aspect of the matter.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting the 1867 Act. Are we to understand that what he is saying is his and the Government's interpretation of that Act rather than any statement which is explicit in that Act, because the Section to which he is referring is only an enabling one?

The Attorney-General: No. I am submitting my view as to the effect of that Act, a view which, I suggest, is supported by the fact that subsequently Parliament did alter the Act. Then it is said—very truly, of course—that all that about the 1867 Act may be quite correct in itself as at that time, but that much water has flowed under the constitutional bridges since 1867 and that the position has been radically altered by the Statute of Westminster. It is perfectly true, of course, that a great deal of water has flowed under the constitutional bridges since 1867, and it is equally true that the position has been radically altered.

Sir Patrick Hannon: The bridges still remain.

The Attorney-General: The bridges still remain. It is our intention to maintain them. It is also true that the position has been radically altered since 1867 but, so far as Newfoundland is concerned, it has not been altered at all by the Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster was in the main what is called an adoptive Act; that is to say, it was brought into operation in relation to the particular Commonwealth countries if and when the Legislatures of those countries chose to adopt it. Newfoundland never did adopt it. In consequence, the operative parts of the Statute of Westminster—Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6—never at any time applied to Newfoundland. In any event, Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster expressly excluded the alteration or the amendment of the British North America Act, 1867, from the scope of the Statute of Westminster. Even if, therefore, the Act had been adopted by Newfoundland, there would still have been that exclusion by Section 7 of the effect of the Act on the old 1867 Statute. One can, therefore, quite safely say—and I have confidence in advising the Committee about this—that there is nothing contrary to the Statute of Westminster in what is now being done.

Sir A. Herbert: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say something about the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster?

The Attorney-General: To say that there is nothing contrary to the Statute of Westminster in what it is now sought to do is, as the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) obviously has

in mind, by no means to conclude the matter. I speak with great diffidence about this, because it must sound very much like a lecture on constitutional law, and there is nothing I should less wish to deliver to the Committee than that. As the junior Burgess for Oxford University knows very well, our constitution—and this, I think, is one of its very greatest merits—consists in part of written laws which are enforceable in the courts and in part of doctrines or conventions which, although they are not directly enforceable in the courts, do in fact effectively control the machinery of government. Although, when dealing with these conventions, we have not got written rules which we can go to court and immediately enforce, I should certainly not wish to rank them any lower in importance than the ordinary rules of law which are immediately enforceable in the courts.
The relationship between the different Commonwealth countries within the Commonwealth is very largely founded upon conventional doctrines of this kind, which the Executives and the Legislatures rightly regard as fettering their own position and their own power and as being binding upon them. I mention that for this reason, that although Newfoundland did not adopt the Statute of Westminster it had for some years prior to 1931 undoubtedly been the constitutional position and the accepted constitutional convention that no law should be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament to extend to any Dominion, except at the request and with the consent of that Dominion, and that doctrine was embodied and enshrined in the recitals which are set out in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster. Setting them out in the Preamble gives them no greater legal effect. They are not part of the substantive enactment itself, but the conventions are in fact set out in the Preamble in a way which leaves no doubt at all as to their existence as constitutional conventions. Those conventions before the Statute of Westminster and in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster did undoubtedly apply to Newfoundland, although Newfoundland did not so adopt the body of the Statute itself.
Probably that meets the point the junior Burgess of Oxford University had


in mind, and I would agree at once that unless something had subsequently happened to alter the constitutional status of Newfoundland and to do away with the conventional doctrines which otherwise would apply to her, the doctrine I have just mentioned about the legislative powers of the United Kingdom Parliament would no doubt have been conventionally applicable to the present legislation. But, of course, something did happen after the Statute of Westminster and after that conventional doctrine had been firmly embodied in the Preamble to the Statute. What happened was that Newfoundland abdicated her position of equal sovereignty as a member of the Commonwealth and it was only to those countries in the Commonwealth which enjoyed equal sovereignty with each other that the convention ever applied as a constitutional doctrine or was ever intended to apply by the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster.

Sir A. Herbert: I quarrel with the word "abdicated." It is very important. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer played a great part in the discussions of the Newfoundland Bill and insisted to the last moment that the word "suspension" of the powers should be put in. I therefore quarrel with "abdication."

The Attorney-General: I accept the correction of the hon. Gentleman. "Temporarily abdicated" is a more accurate phrase—abdicated, at all events, for the time being, the position of an equal sovereign country which hitherto she undoubtedly enjoyed within the Commonwealth. That occurred when the 1933 Newfoundland Act was passed and, incidentally, the recital to that Statute indicates that it was passed not under the Statute of Westminster machinery at all, but in accordance with the previous and still existing conventional practice in regard to the matter—the conventional practice and doctrine of complete sovereign equality. The effect of the 1933 Act, both as a matter of law and as a matter of the less tangible conventional doctrine, was that sovereign equality was at least suspended for the time being, and for the time being—that is to say, during the period in which the 1933 Statute was in operation

—neither the Statute of Westminster nor the conventional doctrine of sovereign equality had any possible application to Newfoundland.
The true position in law—and I am expressing my opinion to the House about a legal matter subject always to the qualification that law is not an exact science—after the 1933 Statute had been passed, was that the United Kingdom Parliament enjoyed complete sovereignty, unfettered sovereignty, over Newfoundland and that Newfoundland, although in name a Dominion, was in fact a Colony. During this period, the United Kingdom Parliament passed a number of Statutes applicable to Newfoundland and it is significant that not only did nobody at any time doubt the capacity of this Parliament to pass Statutes binding on Newfoundland, but in the Statutes which were passed, Newfoundland was always ranked with Colonies and not with Dominions, as we called them then. I have three such Measures in my hand and will not go into detail, but I would point out that in the Prize Act, 1939. it was provided by Section 4:
This Act extends to the following countries and territories, that is to say … (d) Newfoundland and every Colony. …
7.45 p.m.
Almost the same words were used in the Ships and Aircraft Act, 1939:
This Act extends to the following countries and territories, that is to say, … Newfoundland, and any Colony except Southern Rhodesia or a Colony administered by His Majesty's Government in a Dominion.
Again, in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, we provided in Section 9:
His Majesty may by Order in Council … extend the provisions of the Act to such places as may be specified in the Order, namely, the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands, Newfoundland or any Colony.
That, in effect, was the constitutional position which Newfoundland has occupied during this intervening period, the position of a Colony having a special form of government, one of the many varieties of government one finds in different Colonies within the British Commonwealth. Had it been otherwise—and this is the point to which I invite the attention of the junior Burgess for Oxford University—the present obviously temporary form of government in Newfoundland might have had to continue indefinitely and might have been incapable of alteration ever, since the conditions for


the restoration of Responsible Government, namely, solvency plus a request from the Dominion, might never have arisen.
During this period of temporary abdication, this period of suspension, a request to the United Kingdom Parliament for legislation, even if it had been, which manifestly it was not, a condition precedent to legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament, could ex hypothesi not have been a request from the Legislature of Newfoundland, for the Legislature of Newfoundland had gone. It could only have been made by some other method of popular expression. No such request was made by any method of popular expression for the restoration of self-government, but there has been a request for union with Canada. Even, therefore, if the constitutional convention had applied to Newfoundland and even if, contrary to the view I am submitting to the House as the better view, this Parliament had no right conventionally, as opposed to legally, to legislate for Newfoundland except at the request of the people of Newfoundland, the people have made the request in the only way open to them to make it in existing circumstances.
Finally, I come to the point on which it is said that various issues, including the issues about which I have been speaking, are raised in the pending appeal to the Privy Council and that our action in Parliament should await the decision of the Privy Council. I must confess at once that that is a very attractive argument and an argument to which, if it were at all possible, we would certainly wish to defer, even if it were only out of the high respect we hold for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But, it is not always possible for a sovereign Parliament to delay its legislative processes in case the supreme appellate tribunal should take a different view of the law from that which is for the time being laid down by decisions of the courts, which are binding statements of the law. Parliament, in proceeding with this Bill, is in fact proceeding on the basis of the law as at present ascertained and as laid down by the courts.

Professor Savory: Will the Attorney-General say whether, if we pass this Bill into law,

it will make a subsequent appeal to the Privy Council absolutely vain and nugatory?

The Attorney-General: I would not go so far as to say that it would make an appeal vain and nugatory, but it would certainly remove some of the intended practical results of the appeal. About that there can be no doubt. It may well be that if this Bill were passed those who are pursuing the appeal would not consider it worth while so to do. That would depend on what confidence they had in some of the issues raised in the appeal. One of the issues raised in the appeal is that even if this Bill is passed, it would not be effective in Newfoundland. If those who are pursuing the appeal have any confidence in the submission which they are making—perhaps they have not—they will no doubt prosecute the appeal and see whether they can persuade the Privy Council of the correctness of that point of view.

Sir P. Hannon: is there any precedent where Parliament has proceeded, in similar circumstances, with legislation while a case was pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

The Attorney-General: There are certainly cases in which Parliament has proceeded with legislation whilst appeals have been pending to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords in this country, and in which Parliament has dealt with the law and made the law what it thought it ought to be, disregarding any view which the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords might have had as to the existing state of the law. That is obviously the right of a sovereign Parliament. It is not concerned as to the view which the highest court might ultimately take about the existing law. It has proceeded to enact what it wished the law to be. It is entitled to do so and that has often been done.
I cannot say if any problem has arisen in the case of an appeal by a Commonwealth country to the Privy Council. An analogous problem has certainly arisen in the lifetime of this Parliament. At one time there were some cases involving appeals from death sentences which had been imposed, I think, on the Gold Coast. Several appeals were brought, and the position was reached that each time an appeal was dismissed an attempt was


made to bring forward a new appeal, and so to gain a delay in the execution of the death sentence. The position that was taken up then was that the process could not be allowed to go on indefinitely, and that it would be proper in certain circumstances—I have forgotten what was done in the actual cases—for the Executive to act on the existing view of the law as laid down by the existing courts, and not allow its action to be delayed by the possibility that on appeal to the Privy Council a different view might be taken of the legal position.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is it not a fact that a number of people were hanged as a result?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that my recollection of what actually occurred in that case does not enable me to say whether that happened or not. I think it is right to say that no one was hanged who was afterwards found by the Privy Council to be innocent. I imagine that the appeals to the Privy Council did not go on after the sentences had been executed.
The position is that it would be most unfortunate if, after our legislation had been carried right through and received the Royal Assent, the Privy Council should take a view of the law different from that which had so far been laid down in the courts, including the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. In this matter the Committee has to weigh the risks of that happening, and the extent of the misfortune which would follow, against the manifest and certain misfortune which would result from delaying our legislation now. One of the manifest misfortunes which would result from delaying our legislation now would be that Canada would have to pass a new Statute, and there would at the best be a prolonged delay in bringing about confederation. Unfortunately—and we have explored the possibilities of this—the rules under which appeals are brought to the Privy Council do not enable the matter to be expedited so that it can be disposed of in the limited time which remains available.
I say "the limited time which remains available" because unless this Bill is passed into law before the end of March, the Canadian Statute will cease to be

operative. The problem was therefore to get the Privy Council appeal brought on before the end of March. That seems to be quite impossible. Indeed, the appellants, who have already delayed their proceedings until the eleventh hour—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—perhaps that is not quite right. But the proper time for the appellants to take this action was before the Convention and before the Referendum. They should have sought an injunction to declare those things illegal. They did not do that. They waited to see the result, and it was only when it was a result that they did not like that they questioned the legality of what had been done. I do not want to make what might seem to be a debating point. It is sufficient to say that even with the utmost good will on both sides it is impossible to get the matter before the Privy Council before the end of March. Consequently, one has to weigh in the balance the disadvantages of the risks which are attached to either course, the course of delaying this legislation or that of proceeding with it.
Many of the matters raised in the appeal are irrelevant. I venture to think that some of the others are only of academic and historical interest, and although the view of the Privy Council about these matters, if the Privy Council comes to pass its judgment upon them, will be of interest and importance, Parliament is clearly entitled to act as it thinks right in regard to them because they are not matters which affect Parliament's legal powers. For instance, it is now said that there was no power in law to hold a National Convention and the Referendum. But they have been held and they have produced certain results. It is an argument which reminds me of the story of the steward on the cross-Channel steamer who says to a passenger who looks a bit queasy "You cannot be sick here," and the passenger points out that he has just been sick, and is sick again.
The legal position does not really overcome the facts of the case. The Referendum is a fact and it is a fact which is at least as important as the earlier Petition to which the junior Burgess for Oxford University referred during our Second Reading Debate. The absence of any legal basis for it, if that were eventually established, would not really entirely destroy its factual significance.
8.0 p.m.
In addition to these irrelevant points, the appeal raises one point of critical significance. It is a point which I mentioned in answer to a question put to me from the other side of the Committee. The appellants contend that the United Kingdom legislation would not be binding in Newfoundland. That view is based on the view that the Statute of Westminster applies to Newfoundland. It is a view which I venture to think is completely misconceived; and even if it were correct that it did apply to Newfoundland the legal conclusions which the appellants seek to establish from that fact may be completely erroneous. No Government and no Parliament in the United Kingdom would dream for a moment of seeking to over-ride the provisions of the Statute of Westminster in any independent Commonwealth country to which the Statute applied. That is one of the cases where the conventions, rather than the strict law of the Constitution, would effectively constrain the action of our legislature. But it is a very different thing to say that the Privy Council, or any other court in this country, could pass upon such legislation if in fact it did take place.
His Majesty's Government, if I may say so with respect, accept in this matter the very clear, very closely reasoned and very strong judgment of the Newfoundland courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal in Newfoundland, as to the legal position as applied to the present case. We accept the view that there is nothing in the circumstances of this appeal which should in any way affect the present legislation. In face of that statement of the law contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, and taking the view that the United Kingdom Parliament is competent to legislate for Newfoundland and that it has been requested to legislate by Canada, we do not feel justified in wrecking the present proposals, rendering abortive the Statute passed by the Canadian Parliament and ignoring the the request of the Canadian legislature that we ourselves should pass this Bill. We do not feel justified in delaying the aspirations of the recorded majority of the Newfoundlanders because of the risk that the Privy Council may possibly take a different view from that of the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland when this appeal eventually comes before them.
If the Privy Council do take a different view, and do so advise His Majesty, the position would not really be much worse than if we were to delay the present legislation. If the Privy Council did take that view we should at once accept it, and we here, and Canada and Newfoundland, would have to start all over again. But so we should in any event. If we now delay the present Bill the Canadian Statute then ceases to be operative and this Bill will fall to the ground because it will no longer be in accordance with the request of the Canadian Legislature. We would therefore have to go through the whole of this process again and have a new Bill and a new Statute in Canada, further procedure in Newfoundland and eventually a new Bill in this House.

Sir A. Herbert: Those difficulties may arise, but the Government should have foreseen them as long ago as last July when the first representations on those lines were made. It is the folly of Ministers that has got them into this mess.

The Attorney-General: We take the view, and events have shown us to be right, that the action brought in Newfoundland was a frivolous and vexatious action. We did not think it right that the action of a sovereign Parliament should be delayed or impeded by an action defined by the Supreme Court as a frivolous and vexatious action. If we allowed that to be done in every case—and I am putting this as a general proposition—if we allowed the possibility of a frivolous and vexatious action to delay and impede the work of a sovereign Parliament, the work of Parliament would never go forward at all.
We had to make up our minds at that time whether there was any substance in this action. We considered that there was not—and our view has so far been borne out to be the correct one—and we are acting now in accordance with what is the ascertained law. If the Privy Council eventually comes to a different conclusion, that would show that, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, we have acted on a mistaken view of the law. That is always possible. In advising the Committee I always start off by saying that the law


is not an exact science. The hon. Member for Oxford University or I, or both of us, may possibly be mistaken about it. I certainly would not pledge my opinion as being infallible on this or any other matter. But if that does happen, the worst that will arise is that we shall have to start all over again. We shall have to start all over again on either view. If we delay the legislation now we shall have to start over again. If eventually the decision of the Privy Council goes against us, we shall have to start all over again. But on the whole, balancing the risks and the advantages, we think—and I hope it will be appreciated that our view involves no kind of disrespect to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the circumstances we ought to carry through the policy to which the Government have been pladged ever since 1943.

Professor Savory: May I ask a question? If it has already been answered in my absence, I apologise, but it seems to me to be very important. Does not this phrase:
… notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts of 1867 …
preclude an appeal to the Privy Council on the ground that the only means of altering the constitution is by an address to His Majesty from the Legislature, from both Houses of the Newfoundland Parliament?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. I do not think it affects the possibility of presenting that appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of that argument is that it is no longer in the power of this Legislature to over-ride the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, in these regards. The point still remains open, although it is clearly a bad point.

Sir T. Moore: I think that everyone who has listened to the Attorney-General will agree that he has made one of the most persuasive speeches in his career in this House of Commons; but to my mind it was singularly unconvincing. There were quite a number of points which, although possibly unintentionally, he slid over, or he did not attach sufficient importance to them. When he referred—and I am glad that he disapproved of the word, which was inappropriate in the circumstances—to the abdication of sovereignty by Newfoundland he did not at that time mention the

two specific qualifications to that abdication. They were, as he knows as well as we do, that when Newfoundland was again self-supporting and when she wanted back a responsible Government she should have it; secondly, if, unfortunately, the decision of the Privy Council should run contrary to the decision we take in this House of Commons then the whole processes which have been undertaken in this country by this House would have to be postponed, the Canadian Statute would lapse, and Canada, and ourselves and Newfoundland would have to start all over again.

The Attorney-General: I wish to make it clear that what I meant was that if the decision of the Privy Council on the one point to which I referred—the critical point whether the United Kingdom legislation would be effective in Newfoundland—was contrary to the view we were taking. It is only on that aspect of the case that the decision of the Privy Council would affect the position at all. All the other matters would be quite irrelevant to what we are now doing.

Sir T. Moore: I appreciate that point, but I cannot follow the argument that the world would collapse simply because we would have to start again. It seems to me that it would be far wiser to start again, rather than to create this hatred, this contempt on the part of many thousands of people in Newfoundland—with 98 per cent. of British blood in them—or that they should have these feelings of animosity and resentment brought into their attitude towards us.
One more point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was also on the Second Reading. It was a very strong point: Why did these people defer raising their appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council until they knew they had failed in their Referendum? That was the weakest argument that has been raised on the opposite side of the House. Surely it was only reasonable that they should wait until they saw the result of the Referendum.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The intention was to say that these actions were invalid in law. Surely, they ought to have brought that matter up before the actions were performed, and not afterwards.

Sir T. Moore: As we know, the majority of the people who made this appeal are poor people. They cannot afford to take risks such as the very great financial expenditure which they are incurring today. I cannot agree that that argument ought to have been used, and I still trust that the Attorney-General will re-advise the Government on this point.

Mr. Benn Levy: Does the hon. Member recognise that at least a verbal protest could have been lodged with no expense whatever?

Sir T. Moore: The Bill has reached this House backed by 400 well-disciplined supporters. It is only by that action that the protest has not succeeded. The only alternative that the people of Newfoundland have was to appeal to the highest Court.

Mr. Levy: Why did they not protest before the Referendum was held?

Sir T. Moore: Unfortunately our newspapers are too small—[Laughter]—yes, too small to take notice of the very important protests that are made against actions of this House, supported by hon. Gentlemen who are in power. I believe that the Attorney-General and the Government mean to do right, in a way, but they ere doing it in an untimely way. They are doing it without proper consideration of the vast issues involved. If it will cause delay somewhere, or give more trouble to someone, or will cause certain processes to lapse, what is all that, against the alternative of creating anger and hatred amongst our very old friends? In response to the speech made by the Attorney-General I would ask that he revise him opinion and re-advise the Government to take the right and just action in this matter.

Sir A. Herbert: May I very briefly thank the Attorney-General for his very careful and lucid speech? I will qualify the word "lucid," because even though I say he is lucid I cannot always follow what he says, but that is my fault, no doubt. Anyhow, I am very glad that I have not to argue against him before the Privy Council. I want to raise one point which was not quite so fully covered as others with which he dealt. It was when the Attorney-General said that Newfoundland had never adopted Section 4 of the

Statute of Westminster. We must not forget that Newfoundland was made a Dominion by the Statute of Westminster, which was passed in 1931.

The Attorney-General: Newfoundland clearly adopted the doctrine of equal sovereignty prior to 1931. The matter had been the subject of record in 1930 and discussion took place in 1926. There is no doubt that before the Statute of Westminster was passed the conventional doctrine applied to Newfoundland, and that it continued to apply up to 1933. The Statute of Westminister did not affect Newfoundland at all.

8.15 p.m.

Sir A. Herbert: I quite agree, but, that being admitted, let me say that I was only quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman's remark that Newfoundland had never adopted Section 4 of the Statute, which was passed in 1931. In 1933 Newfoundland began to have her financial troubles, since when she has had no Government and could not adopt Section 4. But, as the Attorney-General does not seem to attach much importance to that point I will leave it aside.
Assuming that he is sound on his legal points—and he is a very fine lawyer—let me try to simplify the thing down to two matters of factual significance, to use his own phrase. First, the Newfoundlanders say—this is not my opinion but theirs "Under the Act of 1933 the Commission of Government with its six or seven oligarchs"—I use that term in no offensive sense—"were given power to make laws for the "peace, welfare and good government" of the Island for a temporary period. They had no power to make laws making away with the future and the sovereignty of Newfoundland." That is one simple point.
The other point is: Suppose the Attorney-General to be quite right legally; what is the actual situation we have now? Here, in the House of Commons, we are discussing the affairs and the future of Newfoundland, and the terms of the Bill. Tomorrow in the House of Lords there will be more Parliamentary discussion of the Bill and the terms. For 16 days in the Parliament of Canada these terms of union were discussed. There is nothing to stop the Federal Parliament in Australia or the State Parliaments from discussing in


an airy way tomorrow this great union between Canada and Newfoundland and saying: "These terms seem to be very favourable and fair." In New Zealand and South Africa they can do the same, in the cold air of Hobart or the hot sun of Queensland. They all have Parliaments. There is only one place in the whole Commonwealth where there can be no Parliamentary discussion of these terms, and that is in the Dominion of Newfoundland. Let us sweep away all the legal arguments and the quibbles; that does not seem to be a democratic thing which can be adjusted to our ideas of law or of fact in this Empire. Therefore, if I only have one man with me I am going to ask the House of Commons to divide with me in favour of this Amendment.

Mr. Tolley: I have heard with a certain amount of surprise the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) take up his present attitude. Those of us who have taken the trouble to follow the fortunes of Newfoundland during the last 10 or 15 years should be welcoming the fact that we are giving to Newfoundland a future to which she has never been able to look forward, without first deciding for herself—I believe that she has done that in every sense of the word—with whom she wished to become allied, because of the impossible position in which she has been in the past. She will be in that position in the future also, unless she throws in her lot with the Canadian people.
We know of the poverty an misery that were operating in Newfoundland not many years ago. But for the aid that she was given, the position would in all probability have been much worse until it became intolerable. The result of it all is that this is not an attempt to squeeze out of existence the country or its people. It is not that, but the exact opposite. I give my support to this Measure tonight because I am sincere in believing that here is a glorious opportunity for the people of Newfoundland to enjoy the rights and privileges of civilised men and women and to look forward with a great sense of hope. We should be doing wrong in delaying the Measure.
I listened to the Attorney-General explaining the situation. I cannot believe

that the Privy Council will for one moment accede to the requests being made to them. If they do so, I believe they will be penalising for all time many thousands of people whom I want to see enjoy all the privileges which civilisation can give them. If I speak feelingly, it is because I have followed the fortunes of this little country with some interest. Because I have done that, I welcome very much indeed the generous gesture of Canada, plus the help which we in this country and in this Parliament are endeavouring to give towards this alliance. I have no hesitation in saying that if that alliance is made, the people of Newfoundland will indeed have something to which to look forward which they have never had before.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I listened with great interest to the Attorney-General. I agree with two of the three points on which he seemed to base his case—his observations upon Section 146 of the Act of 1867, that the Statute of Westminster had not been adopted by Newfoundland in 1931 or at any time, and his observations about the sovereign power of Parliament and that whatever the decision of the Privy Council might be, it does not affect the rights of this Legislature. I find difficulty in accepting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's third point. This point was that in 1933 the Legislature was not in being, and Newfoundland having got into financial difficulties, she fell back to the rank of a Colony and was administered as a Colony until the position was restored in about 1942 or 1943 when she became solvent again.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: It was in 1941.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: There was one other element left out. Although she became solvent, there was a second condition which was omitted, namely, that there should be a request for the restoration of the Legislature. There has been no such request and, therefore, another procedure has been adopted. That procedure has been the procedure of a Referendum. I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that there was no legal foundation for the Referendum.

The Attorney-General: No, I did not by any means say that. I would be far from conceding that. I said that was one of the allegations made in the pending appeal, but it was completely rejected both by the court of first instance and by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland—so much so in the Supreme Court that the Attorney-General who appeared to argue the matter was not even called upon. The Supreme Court thought that the suggestion that the Referendum and the Convention were not on a legal basis was quite unarguable.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I did not seek to make the point that it was illegal. It was clearly lawful for the Referendum to be made. The point I am now making is that although it may have been lawful to do it, it would have been far more satisfactory and in the interests of Newfoundland not to have adopted that procedure. The result may have been exactly the same; I am not disputing what the result may have been, but since Newfoundland had been restored to her position and was no longer in the position of a Colony—in fact, not in law—it would have been much better if the Legislature had been restored. It is not a legal case but a political case which I am arguing.

The Attorney-General: I have not sought at all to deal with the political aspects of the matter. I tried to confine myself to the constitutional position. Under the Act of 1933 it was not open to the Legislature here to restore the Legislature in Newfoundland unless and until the people of Newfoundland had made a request. That was the position under the Act of 1933. This Parliament is sovereign and can do anything it likes. The scheme under the 1933 legislation was that Responsible Government—that is to say, a Legislature—would not be restored to Newfoundland until two conditions were fulfilled—solvency plus a request. That request had to come from someone. It could not have come from the Legislature because it was only after the request had been made that the Legislature was to be restored. Therefore, the only way in which we could provide for enabling such a request to be made was by the National Convention and the Referendum.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I readily accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman

says, that there should be a request, but there was no request for the Referendum. Therefore, the Government had to make up their minds. I am now talking of the political aspect; I am not discussing the legal argument, nor am I disputing it for a moment. I am not suggesting that anything illegal has been done. When a decision for the Referendum was made, the position being that prior to 1933 Newfoundland had been a Dominion, it would have been a wiser decision politically on the part of this Government to have restored that Legislature so that Newfoundland was no longer in the position of a Colony. It would have been wiser and more satisfactory for Newfoundland if that position had been restored, and we should probably have had precisely the same result.

Mr. E. P. Smith: What seems to me to be distressing is that a Referendum should have been held in Newfoundland at a time when popular democratic government as we understand it was suspended. That point was made very forcibly by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). The other point I wish to make is that the Attorney-General has argued that Newfoundland is in the position of a Colony rather than a Dominion. If that is so, and Newfoundland is, in fact, a Colony, then, following his argument, a Referendum could be held in any British Colony for adherence to some Power other than Great Britain. I think that point has its dangerous implications. I am sure the Committee realise that the Attorney-General has been very dignified and reasonable in the case he has put. but my opinion is that when he is most dignified and most reasonable he is least sure in his law.

Mr. Benn Levy: I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), because he raised a point which at first sight seemed to have some validity, but which I do not think in fact it has. I understood him to argue that it was politically expedient to restore self-government to Newfoundland, even though it was not legal according to the 1933 Statute. It is perfectly true, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that it was within the competence of the House to pass another Act abrogating the


Act of 1933 and making it no longer obligatory for the people of Newfoundland to make a request. But I cannot quite understand why that should be regarded as a politically expedient course of action. The only way in which it could be regarded as politically expedient would be by begging the question of whether or not the people of Newfoundland really want the restoration of self-government.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: No, it is not a matter of status. It is true that Newfoundland had not lawfully regained the status of a Dominion, but in fact she has.

Mr. Levy: That could only be true if we regard Dominion status as synonymous with solvency. But that argument really involves the legal position and not the factual position—and only half the legal position at that. The hon. and learned Gentleman is taking half of the legal position and saying that it is de facto. It certainly cannot be described as de jure because he split it in half. From the point of view of political expediency, what surely would have happened would have been that we would have offended that section of the Newfoundland population, which turned out to be the majority, that did not want self-government.
8.30 p.m.
The junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) made a sincere and impassioned speech on the ground of the following argument. He said it was deplorable that, alone in the Empire, Newfoundland was unable to discuss the details of her own confederation. He made that point in the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that it was answered, but he has ignored the answer. The answer is very simple. The Newfoundlanders had the choice of discussing the details if they wanted to. The Referendum really gave them the choice. What they were asked to decide in the Referendum was, "Do you wish selfgovernment with the right to discuss at some future time if you want confederation with Canada or accept confederation now with the knowledge that——

Sir A. Herbert: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. In the Referendum they were asked, "Do you in principle

want Confederation with Canada? "By a small majority they said "Yes." They were not asked, "Do you want Confederation with Canada, cutting out all the constitutional arrangements for discussing the terms through Parliament?" They were not asked that at all.

Mr. Levy: My hon. Friend is quite wrong; in effect that is precisely what they were asked.

Sir A. Herbert: No.

Mr. Levy: Everybody who cast a vote in favour of confederation knew that there was not to be an intermediate step where a legislature would be in a position to discuss the details of confederation.

Sir A. Herbert: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Levy: Obviously, if one is to vote either for immediate confederation or for self-government, one excludes self-government as a prelude to confederation.

Sir A. Herbert: Oh no.

Mr. Levy: Is not that obvious? I cannot think that there could have been any misunderstanding in the minds of the people of Newfoundland, nor, until this very moment, has any one—not even the junior Burgess himself—suggested that there was that misunderstanding. Nobody at any time since the Referendum was voted upon has suggested that there was this kind of misunderstanding. Surely, it is reasonable to conclude that when the people of Newfoundland voted, as they did vote, for Confederation with Canada, they voted with the understanding that the details of confederation would be discussed by the junior Burgess's so-called "oligarchs," and that they were perfectly satisfied for it to be discussed in that way.

Sir T. Moore: As far as I could follow the hon. Gentleman, his one argument was that of the danger of offending the 78,000 people who voted for confederation in the Referendum. But if a responsible, democratically elected Government were set up and the majority of that Government voted for Confederation, what offence would be committed towards anyone? Why should anyone feel hurt?

Mr. Levy: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is begging the question. He is assuming that Newfoundland wanted self-government and therefore it was justifiable and inoffensive to impose it.

Sir T. Moore: I am not discussing anything at all. I am merely asking.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am reluctant to prolong this Debate and I do not intend to say more than a few words. The junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) and some of his hon. Friends have said hard things about the Government. I will not say any hard things about them. Their case has rested entirely on certain constitutional and legal arguments. The Attorney-General has demolished those arguments tonight. I want to add, in view of the last speech which the junior Burgess for Oxford University made, that the whole of what the Government have done has been founded on proposals which he himself put forward—every bit of them, from 1933 onwards. In the Act of 1933, it was laid down that two conditions were to be fulfilled—that the country was to be self-supporting, and that a request from the people should be made. In 1943, the junior Burgess came back from Newfoundland when the Budget was balanced, and he said that he did not for a moment believe that, in any modern sense of the word, Newfoundland was going to be self-supporting. I have got his exact words, and I could read them to the Committee if it is desired.

Sir A. Herbert: Where are they taken from?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They are taken from a speech made by the hon. Member in the House of Commons on 16th December, 1943. Shall I read it. The hon. Gentleman then said:
Is Newfoundland likely to be self-supporting in the strict economic sense, say, within two years after the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1781.]
which was the time when he suggested self-government should be restored. But he answered "No." He went on to say:
I am certain that even if, say, two years after the war, Newfoundland is able to maintain her social services at their present level, which is a deplorably low one—and that is doubtful—it is certain that, without assistance from someone … they will never be raised

to a level which will be compatible to the dignity of a British people under the British flag."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1785.]
"Never," said the hon. Gentleman, and he went on to say that, even if we gave them two Parliaments tomorrow and said nothing about their economic future, they would not even thank us. That is the first condition. I do not want to deal with it at all; I am only giving the views of the hon. Gentleman at that time.
Now we come to the request. How was it to be made? Was it to be made by a legislature? Were we to reestablish responsible government, and, until they made the request——

Sir A. Herbert: I have asked the question before whether these words "by request" came in later, because they were not in the original constitutional paragraphs or in the Letters Patent.

Mr. Noel-Baker: They are in the Act of Parliament passed by this House in 1933, and will be found in paragraph (g) of the annexe to the Schedule. They are in the Act, and we cannot disregard the Act. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that, because the Royal Commission did not write the words "by request" into its first report, therefore, we should now disregard the Act passed by this House 15 years ago? Of course, he is not saying that. How was that request to be expressed? When the hon. Member came back from Newfoundland at the end of 1943, he made proposals to the then Government, and my predecessor, now Lord Salisbury, considered those proposals. They were on the basis of what the hon. Member said—that there should be first a National Convention and that that should be followed up by a Referendum.

Sir A. Herbert: Not about Canada.

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, but what did the hon. Gentleman propose? He said they should consider a number of alternatives—the election of three Newfoundlanders by the people themselves, some different form of single Chamber, with the elected and appointed representatives face to face, as in Jamaica. Perhaps, he thought that the Jamaican Constitution would do for Newfoundland at that time. Above all, he suggested—and this is what he insisted upon and begged the Govern-


ment not to set aside—the inclusion of Newfoundland in the United Kingdom on lines roughly, but not exactly, similar to Northern Ireland. Is that Confederation? Not with Canada, but Confederation with the United Kingdom. Of course, it was Confederation, and the hon. Member never suggested that it would be an essential preliminary to have the re-establishment of responsible government, which should consider the matter. On the contrary, I will tell him some other things which he said. He said:
We should announce, I suggested, that, say, two or three years after the war, or from now if you like, we intended to restore full self-government to Newfoundland unless by a plebiscite one year before that they had chosen some other form of Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1783.]
When we announced in December, 1945—

Sir A. Herbert: There is not a word about Canada.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In some of his writings and speeches the hon. Member has shown a certain bias against Canada.

Sir A. Herbert: Where?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will tell him—in "Humphrey's Magazine." Words could not be plainer than those he used. Of

course, he was proposing this method which we have adopted, and when, in December, 1945, the present Government followed up what Lord Salisbury had done and announced the system of the National Convention to be followed by the plebiscite to consider a variety of forms of Government, the hon. Member rose in his place and congratulated them. He did not rise and say, "You must first restore responsible Government." He said the exact opposite.

I want to end by an appeal to the hon. Member. He has given wide publicity to a certain number of propositions, which as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has shown, have no foundation in law or in constitutional practice. He has helped to prolong the unhappy bitterness which has existed in Newfoundland. I hope he will now help us to secure the acceptance of this new thing which is going through so that in Newfoundland, as in Canada and elsewhere, this will be accepted as a splendid form of democratic self-government for the Newfoundland people as part of the great nation of Canada and as part of the great Commonwealth to which we all belong.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 241.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
8.45 p.m.


Bowen, R.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Gage, C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Ropner, Col. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Sir Alan Herbert and




Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Daggar, G.


Albu, A. H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies. Edward (Burslem)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Alpass, J. H.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Deer, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, James
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Attewell, H. C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Champion, A J.
Diamond, J.


Balfour, A.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Digby, S. W.


Barstow, P. G.
Cobb, F. A.
Dobbie, W,


Barton, C.
Cocks, F. S.
Dodds, N. N.


Battley, J. R.
Collick, P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collins, V. J.
Donner, P. W.


Benson, G.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Donovan, T.


Berry, H.
Conanl, Maj. R. J. E 
Dumpleton, C. W.


Binns, J.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Blyton, W. R.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Cove, W. G.
Evan, John (Ogmore)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Crawley A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)




Fairhurst, F.
Logan, D. G.
Richards, R.


Farthing, W. J.
Lyne, A. W,
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Fernyhough, E.
McAdam, W.
Robens, A,


Follick, M.
McAllister, G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Forman, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McFarlane, C. S.
Robinson, Roland


Gailskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MoGhee, H. G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mack, J. D.
Sargood, R.


Gibbins, J.
MoKay, J. (Wallsend)
Scollan, T.


Gibson, C. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sharp, Granville


Gilzean, A.
MoKinlay, A. S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Grey, C. F.
MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Skeffington, A. M.


Grierson, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skinnard, F. W.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Gunter, R. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W.)


Haire, John E. (Wyoombe)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hale, Leslie
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank 


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Steele, T.


Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.
Melilsh, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mellor, Sir J.
Stross, Dr. B.


Hardy, E. A.
Messer, F.
Studholme, H. G


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sutcliffe, H


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, S


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Herbison, Miss M.
Morley, R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hobson, C. R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, D. E. (Abendare)


Holman, P.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Tiffany, S.


Hoy, J.
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, J.


Hubbard, T.
Nally, W.
Titterington, M. F


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
Tollley, L.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Viant, S. P.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
O'Brien, T.
Warbey, W. N


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Odey, G. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Oldfield, W. H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Weitzman, D.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jenkins, R. H.
Palmer, A. M. f.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jennings, R.
Parker, J
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Parkin, B. T.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E,)


Keenan, W.
Peart, T. F.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Kenyon, C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Kinley, J.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kirby, B. V.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lang, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Langford-Holt, J.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Willis, E.


Lavers, S.
Proctor, W. T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A 


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pryde, D. J.
Woods, G. S.


Leslie, J. R.
Randall, H. E.
Yates, V. F.


Levy, B. W.
Ranger, J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Rankin, J.
Zilliacus, K.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Reeves, J.



Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. Pearson.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule and Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment, to the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. P. Noel-Baker.]

8.53 p.m.

Sir A. Herbert: I do not wish to delay the House long, but I do think the House will do me the justice of letting me say one or two words in reply to the attack made upon me by the Secretary of State.

I am certainly not going to say that everything I have done in this business has been right. On the contrary, long ago in "The Times" and elsewhere I have confessed that like all of us in this affair, I may have made some mistakes. However, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman what I did recommend in the Report. I would first tell him that when I wrote my Report, on which was founded that speech of mine which he has quoted, I was not in a great office with the Statute of Westminster before me but in a small sailing boat off the coast of Labrador, and I was eating seagulls and salt cod, and was fogbound for nine days. A very uncomfortable time it was.

Mr. Scollan: Not more uncomfortable than the time the hon. Gentleman has had tonight.

Sir A. Herbert: I had not got the Statute of Westminster with me or the British North America Act, 1867. Indeed, I do not think I had heard of the British North America Act, 1867, at that time. If I had, I should certainly have thought twice about making some of the recommendations I did—although I think they were practically pretty sensible all the same. The House must realise this, that at that time the political machinery was dead, and that it had been dead for 10 years, and one great thing was to get that machinery going again—to get a council of citizens together to discuss their future. That was the idea of the Convention. Another idea was the Referendum. That was also recommended by Lord Ammon. It was thought that they might well wish to allow a short time to go by after the war—a couple of years perhaps—to see how the Newfoundlanders stood, and to see how their future might shape: and for such a short period stay under Commission of Government, perhaps in a modified form. That was constitutionally the only justifiable aim and purpose of the Referendum. I think it was useful and gave a general idea of the feelings of the people. But I did not think that anyone said that the Referendum ought to be allowed to exclude the proper constitutional operations.
However, I sympathise with the Secretary of State, and I am sure that he is as glad as I am that this Bill is leaving this House for good or ill. When hon. Members opposite say that we are trying to delay something which is going to be for the good and glory of the people of Newfoundland, I would ask them to remember that these terms were signed, according to this Bill, by the Government of Newfoundland, by seven people appointed by the Crown, four of whom are Englishmen; and, therefore, we have a right and a duty to look at this Bill most carefully before we send it to the House of Lords and say "Go ahead."
I have said before on the authority of a firm of Canadian chartered accountants—not a bold politician like me—who have studied these terms that they thought there is going to be a deficit every year in the provinces of Canada of 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 dollars.

I hope that they are wrong; I hope that I am wrong. But there it is.
I must congratulate the office over which the Secretary of State presides upon having done something which I did not think they would do five years ago. Before I went to Newfoundland, I asked a distinguished Canadian official, "Do you want Newfoundland" and he said "No." I said, "Do you want Labrador" and he said "Yes." Some time later, when I came back, I put those questions to him, and he answered to both "Yes." As to what caused that change I am not going to speculate because it would be more delicate and discreet not to. I remember Lord Ammon saying, and I think we were all agreed at that time, that confederation was only on the fringe of practical politics. Lord Ammon said it was impracticable, though he was rather in favour of it, because it was completely out of sympathy with the bulk of the people's wishes——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I think that the hon. Gentleman is going rather wide on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I must ask him to confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Sir A. Herbert: I was congratulating the right hon. Gentleman's Office on having caused a very great change indeed from those days. May I mention one point which the Parliamentary Secretary asked me to make, because the other day he questioned the observation of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), about the forbidding of the use of the wireless by those who were organising the petition, and I thought that he was questioning something which I said. The Parliamentary Secretary very handsomely said that I was perfectly right. When these people were organising the petition——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into all the activities that led up to the Referendum being taken. He must confine himself to the agreement in the Bill and the provisions of the Bill as they now are.

Sir A. Herbert: I apologise again. All I can say is that I hope we can finish in a mild air of that harmony for which the right hon. Gentleman appeals. Doubtful and sad though I am, I should be foolish and boorish, if I did not say


what I do say with all my heart and soul: I hope that this affair will go much better than I feel and fear and that this union which has been so queerly and somewhat unhappily solemnised may be consummated more smoothly and satisfactorily, and that this fine couple will live happily for ever after. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on many of the things that he has done.

9.0 p.m.

Sir T. Moore: I will not detain the House for many minutes. When I spoke on Second Reading concerning this, as I honestly believe, shameful Bill, I said I thought that it was probably too late to alter the course of events. That thought has proved true. I admit that the voting tonight and on Second Reading was impressive; but I wonder just how much hon. Members who trooped into these Lobbies knew exactly what they were voting about and what they were voting for.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman cannot reflect on hon. Members and how they vote. Secondly, that has nothing to do with what is in the Bill at the present moment.

Sir T. Moore: I was not reflecting on anyone. I was merely submitting a query. However, I will follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker and will only ask, once again—because neither the Secretary of State nor the Attorney-General answered the query before—why are we in such a hurry? Is it the fear that public opinion will be aroused in this country, as it was aroused in Canada and in Newfoundland? Is it the fear of an even greater force of nationalism arising in Newfoundland? Or do they fear that other parts of the Commonwealth may suddenly see their future in jeopardy? Whatever the reason, I believe the result will go down to posterity as something both unconstitutional and unethical on our part.
I feel very strongly about this. I do not know why. I have no justifiable reason to offer. I have never been to Newfoundland, although I have met a number of Newfoundlanders; but I feel in my conscience that I cannot support this Bill. I feel it to be wrong. Possibly other hon. Members have taken the same line on other Measures, because of their consciences and their judgments. There-

fore, I must say what I am saying. [Laughter.] That may amuse some hon. Members, but that does not worry me. All I can say in conclusion is that it is possible, and no doubt probable, that when this Bill. becomes an Act the future of Newfoundland will be more secure. more tranquil and more prosperous under the wing of Canada. But we are denying her the possibly dangerous but at any rate adventurous right of shaping her own destiny, of moulding her own future, and of deciding her own fate. Feeling that way, as I do, I can only hope—although not on the same lines as my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert)—that when this Bill goes to another and wiser place, the mistake, the tragic mistake, that we are making tonight will be rectified.

9.4 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: As I intend voting against the Third Reading of this Bill, I ought to say a word or two in justification of my proposed action. As I said previously, I feel very strongly that the Bill has been too hurriedly carried through Parliament at the instance of His Majesty's Government. Whatever may be the result or the ultimate destiny of the Bill when it becomes an Act, I hope that no ill-feeling will prevail in Newfoundland between the different sections of the people themselves. My reason for voting against the Bill is that there is a deep-seated feeling among a large section of the Newfoundland people that they have not been justly treated by His Majesty's Administration in this country. I think it a very sad reflection that any action taken by this House of Commons should create a feeling of that kind in the oldest Dominion, and among people in that part of the Commonwealth who are of our own blood and sinews.
I have the greatest admiration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. No one could have listened to his full and cogent speech this evening without feeling that he had given a great deal of time and thought and mature consideration to the provision in this Bill. At the same time, I do not think he impressed the House with the fourth consideration with which he dealt, namely, the relationship which will arise between the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I am afraid that is not in the Bill.

Sir P. Hannon: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am opposed to the Bill because I feel that injustice has been done to a large section of people in Newfoundland. I have had letters from these splendid people referring in generous terms to the Commission which did such admirable work in the adminstration of the Colony. I feel strongly that this House ought not, in a Measure of this kind, to be a party to any means by which a feeling of rankling injustice will be felt by any of our people in any part of the world.
At the same time, I hope that when the Bill leaves this House no misunderstanding will be created either in Canada or Newfoundland. We all have the greatest admiration for the Dominion of Canada. Its contribution to the vitality, progress and strength of the Commonwealth is beyond question. At the same time we are grateful to the people of Newfoundland, who sent us a magnificent contingent of fighting men during the war. When these matters are adjusted, one can hope that peace will prevail and that the ultimate results will be to the complete and outstanding advantage of the people of both Canada and Newfoundland.

9.7 p.m.

Professor Savory: To confine myself to what is in the Bill, I would draw the attention of the House to this important Clause 1, about which I ventured to put a question to the Attorney-General, namely, that this Bill:
shall have the force of law notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
I have not been satisfied on that point. I feel that the only constitutional course even now at this late stage, is to carry out the Act of 1867 by reconstituting the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of Newfoundland and allowing them to vote on this question. In spite of the eloquence and clearness of the Attorney-General and his endeavour to put the case, as he did, from an objective point of view, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not convinced me that by inserting this Clause we are not prejudicing the appeal that these people have made to the Judicial Committee of the

Privy Council, to which they are surely entitled.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already indicated to the House that no reference can now be made to the Judicial Committee.

Professor Savory: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am sure you will allow me to say that I look forward to the future. I prophesy that an attempt will be made to use this Bill as a precedent for forcing Ulster into a union with Eire.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: In case there should be any misunderstanding about the silence of hon. Members on this side of the House, may I say that it is exactly 40 years last month since I landed for the first time in Newfoundland. In wishing Godspeed to the new regime, I want to say that if half the slop we have heard from the Opposition tonight had been converted into real effort to do something for our oldest Dominion in the intervening 40 years, this Bill would not have been necessary. When I visited the place I was almost frozen to death on two occasions, but I was impressed first by the character of the inhabitants of Newfoundland and, secondly, by the outward signs of the neglect of Newfoundland by the great British Commonwealth. I hope that in becoming a component part or province of Canada—that is the hope, I am sure, at least of everybody on this side of the House—they will go from strength to strength and, instead of being a bad debt to the British Dominions, will become an asset of which we shall all be proud.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) for what he has just said and to endorse his words. I am grateful also for the words spoken by the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) and by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). In reply to the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), I would ask him to read in HANSARD tomorrow what was said by the Attorney-General and what I said on Second Reading a week ago. To the junior Burgess for Oxford University


I say that I never attacked him. I should never do any such thing. I only quoted what he had said. When he said it he was not on a small sailing boat in the North Atlantic—he may have been fog-bound, but I do not think so—but he was here, in the House, and he had the Statute of Westminster at his disposal.
I have risen only because the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) used the word "shameful." He said that the haste which we had shown was shameful. Our predecessors, the Coalition Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and ourselves have been engaged on this question for five and a quarter years, on a consistent plan which has been known to everybody for all that time. We had the support of every party and of the junior Burgess until the end of July last year. Governments cannot carry forward a policy for five years and then switch at the last moment when the thing is nearly through. We had to go on, of course, but I hope that now everybody will re-echo the words of the junior Burgess and of my hon. Friend that all bitterness will be forgotten and that this may end in good.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (STAFF COMPENSATION)

9.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I beg to move,
That the Draft Electricity (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
I should like first to draw the attention of the House to two slight printing errors in this Draft, which can be put right in the final printing. The first is on page 4, in Regulation 4 (4), at line 3, where the word "regulations" should be "regulation." All that is required here is the deletion of the final "s." Then, in page 5, Regulation 7 (2), the last line begins: "which the person concern. …" Obviously, to be grammatically correct, this should read, "which the person concerned. … "
These regulations follow very closely indeed the Transport Regulations and those issued in connection with the new Health Service. When discussion took place in the House on the Transport Regulations, which were almost identical with these, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) said that, broadly speaking the regulations were reasonable and fair. I think the same words are quite applicable to the regulations which I now move. The House is aware, of course, that these regulations are laid under Section 55 of the Electricity Act, 1947, providing for compensation to officers
who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened in consequence …
of vesting. That wording is exactly the same as was provided in the Transport Regulations. There may be some doubt as to what "officer" means and I direct the attention of the House to the Act. It will be seen that in Section 67:
'officer' includes a managing director and a director whose functions are substantially those of an employee but not any other director, and also includes a servant.
These regulations cover all those persons who are in the employ of the industry, some 130,000. All the same, it is our view that there will be very little need for the regulations for the great bulk of those employed in the industry. I believe that on Monday this week Sir Henry Self said that, as far as the generating programme is concerned, and not taking into consideration the distribution programme at all, in the next five years something in the nature of 3,000 staff would be required and an additional 25,000 manual workers. Clearly the staff generally are fairly comfortable in the knowledge that they are not likely to require these regulations. All the same they are here to cover them if they are needed.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: I am sorry to interrupt, but I only do it to help the Debate. When did Sir Henry say this?

Mr. Robens: I understand that it was at a public function on Monday, a luncheon or dinner, or something of that character. In any case in looking at these regulations, we must have regard to the background of Government policy, the maintenance of full employment, and the


fact that it is Government policy to ensure that any person displaced by reason of vesting should be found some alternative employment. So far as diminution of emoluments is concerned, a very large proportion of the staff is covered by the normal trade union and association agreements and will be catered for by normal trade union machinery and wage agreements. It is our view that any redundancy there is likely to be will only affect two classes of persons—those will be certain directors not employed after vesting day and secondly, a few exceptional cases mainly of the higher paid staff.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: "Certain directors," meaning directors employed full-time and not others?

Mr. Robens: No, I am speaking of certain executive directors who will not be employed after vesting day. These regulations, in common with the transport regulations, put a limit of compensation on earnings of £4,000 per annum so that the limit which, in accordance with the regulations is two-thirds of the sum, would mean that the maximum compensation for the highest paid would be £2,666. There may be some argument about that. Indeed, it was raised on the transport regulations and I think it should be said again, as it was said then, that one should be reasonable about compensation, but one should also have fair regard to the consumers, and it is not unreasonable to fix a maximum of £4,000 as the earnings upon which the two-thirds is to be based. That seems fair to the higher paid individual and to the consumer and it must be borne in mind that, after two years, that individual is in a position, if he desires, of earning other income without affecting his compensation.
It is not intended that there should be any provision in these regulations for compensation for any person with employment of less than an average of 30 hours weekly. There is here a slight change from the previous regulations in connection with matters of compensation in relation to a director who has executive functions occupying less than 30 hours a week but who is a director for some hours a week. In these regulations we permit the aggregation of his functional directorship and his normal directorship, and if the weekly hours exceed

30 on the average he will be entitled to compensation within the terms of the regulations.
We also repeated in these regulations what was done in the transport regulations to the effect that no person can receive compensation unless he was employed prior to vesting for a continuous period of not less than eight years after attaining the age of 18. The Government's first view on this matter was that 10 years was the right period to fix. We ought to be sure that an individual who is to be compensated has his roots in the industry. As I say, the Government's view originally was that the number of years ought to be 10, but after consideration and discussion the period was brought down to eight years. Eight years is common both to the transport regulations and to the National Health Service Regulations.

Mr. Scollan: Is there an age limit?

Mr. Robens: No, there is not an age limit in one respect. In assessing the compensation for loss of employment we must have regard to the terms of a man's employment or the terms of any other employment he has obtained or might have obtained since the date of the loss. We have also to take into consideration the extent to which he has sought alternative employment, and other relevant circumstances. That is because the main objective of the regulations is to compensate the individual for something which he has lost. It would obviously be quite unnecessary to compensate an individual for a loss when he has not or need not have suffered any loss. That is common to the transport regulations.

Mr. Bracken: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has made a very sweeping statement. Do I understand that officials now serving under the British Transport Commission who have, I believe, received high pensions from their former railway employers have given those up? That is a matter of high consequence. I believe that there are people serving the Transport Commission who are, with the approval of the Minister of Transport, also drawing large pensions from the railways.

Mr. Robens: That has nothing to do——

Mr. Bracken: It has a lot to do.

Mr. Robens: No, that has nothing to do with the regulations, which are to provide for compensation for loss necessarily incurred on vesting. What the shareholders of the railway companies did for their people was something that they were entitled to do, and some of them did do something in that respect.
I am concerned here not with arguing the transport regulations. I am trying to show that this matter has been discussed in principle on two other occasions. This is important because other similar regulations will come along later on in connection with other nationalised industries, and I hope that with the full discussion we are having tonight the approval of the regulations that we have in the future will be found to be much easier.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When the hon. Gentleman says that these regulations are similar to the transport regulations, is he aware that under Section 21 (1) of the Transport Act certain payments can be made to directors which are forbidden under the Electricity Act, and that therefore his whole case falls to the ground?

Mr. Robens: I know that, but it does not fall to the ground at all. I have not at any time said that these are identical with the Transport regulations. I have said that they are very largely similar to the Transport regulations and they are similar to the Health regulations. I have been indicating where they are similar and if the hon. and gallant Member looks at HANSARD he will see that that is so.
We are also taking into account the compensation or damages paid to an individual for breach of contract. The House would agree that it would be clearly unreasonable that an individual should be compensated twice for a loss arising out of the same event.
The similarity with the Transport regulations appears once again when we look at the amount of compensation. There is the immediate compensation which is confined entirely to loss of employment. That is payable at the rate of two-thirds of the former earnings after allowing for unemployment benefits, two-thirds of which are taken into account. I hope

that I have made myself clear. Two-thirds of his earnings, less the two-thirds of the unemployment benefit that he would or might receive.
Then there is the substantive compensation which is payable after three months, or in the case where immediate compensation has not been paid, from the date of the loss. This substantive compensation is not to exceed one-sixtieth of the loss for each year of service, except in so far as an individual is over 45 years of age, when it receives an addition for added years. It is fairly obvious that as a man gets older the possibility of re-employment is lessened, and it was felt that he should have something added for that reason. Again the overriding principle will apply that the maximum must be two-thirds of the loss and again there is the similarity with the transport regulations.
With regard to the residual compensation I do not need to spend too long upon it. That is providing for the pension which the man would otherwise have received had he remained in the employment of the previous company.
As regards the method of payment compensation will be an annual sum paid weekly or monthly according to the custom or practice that has been operating. There are two exceptions to that. At the discretion of the Board the sum can be commuted to a lump sum payment, if the annual value does not exceed £26. Clearly that is worth while as there does not seem much point in having payments of very small amounts. The other exception is in relation to the individual himself. If the person concerned so requests, a quarter of larger sums than £26 may be commuted. That is in cases where there is no lump sum benefit.
In the making of these regulations consultations have taken place with the various interests concerned. I am not saying that all the various interests have welcomed and agreed to every point, but there has been consultation. They have known about them and they have known our views. In any case, if there is disagreement on any of these matters, the individual has the right to go before the tribunal who will consider his case. The Ministry of Labour and National Service will be responsible for the tribunals. Whilst no regulations will be issued in connection with the tribunals, it may


interest hon. Members to know that the arrangements will provide that, subject to the formal agreement of the tribunals, the appellant will be able to be represented by any person he desires—by a representative of his trade union, or by counsel or solicitor. Reasonable expenses for travelling and subsistence will be paid to appellants, and also to witnesses if their presence is regarded by a tribunal as necessary. In that matter I think that everything reasonable has been done to enable an aggrieved party to put his or her case without much difficulty. We feel that the regulations will provide a fair basis of compensation and that they carry out the promises made during the Committee stage of the Electricity Bill.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman has compared these regulations with those adopted by the Transport Commission. It may be a fair comparison for all I know, except that I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to answer the question which I now put to him. A member of the London Transport Board, which is Government controlled, was invited to become a member of the Transport Commission of the country under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Hurcomb. It was a transfer from the London Transport Board to the Transport Commission. He received a very large salary as a member of the Transport Commission, but with full Government approval he was paid a large compensation for loss of office from the London Transport Board when he transferred himself to the Transport Commission. Is it fair to compare the regulations which the Minister is trying to persuade us to accept tonight with the Transport Commission's generous arrangement for people who serve them well?

Mr. Robens: Yes, I think that it is perfectly fair. I am rather amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should put that question to me, because I have read very carefully the Debate on the Transport regulations. None of the right hon. Gentleman's friends thought it was a worthwhile point to raise with the Minister of Transport.

9.33 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must admit that when I saw these regulations I was very worried. I thought that a great number

of things had been laid down which could not be substantiated. I am afraid that I must say, with deference to the Parliamentary Secretary, that what he has said tonight has not helped me in the least to dispel the fears that I had. He appeared to make his case on three main points. He started by saying that these regulations are comparable, or similar, to the Compensation regulations of the British Transport Commission. That appeared to be his main argument. I ask him to consider one matter to which I shall have to refer later, and that is the definition of war-time service. Will he look at that definition in the regulations of the Transport Commission and compare it with these regulations? Which is the better? Which is the wider? Is it not a fact that these regulations cut down completely the very liberal provisions made by the British Transport Commission?
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that all the trade union agreements would be recognised, and therefore we could dismiss from our minds any consideration of anybody except a director. I am paraphrasing, but that is what I understood him to say. If one looks at the regulations, there is not one word anywhere to say that any trade union agreement must be accepted, and the hon. Gentleman would be hard put to it to find one single phrase in the regulations to support that. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman finished by talking about directors, and I shall return to that later, but I do suggest that it is very hard for him to stand at that Box tonight and try to say that he has carried out the undertakings which were given in the Standing Committee.
Before we come to the main issue, I think it is right to protest at the length of time which it has taken to produce these regulations. If one looks at the timetable, one finds that the Royal Assent was given on 13th August, 1947, that the vesting date was 1st April, 1948, and that the first draft of regulations was produced on 10th July. They were quite rightly and hastily withdrawn, and it was not until February of this year that new regulations were produced for this House to consider. And these are regulations which vitally affect a number of men. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that there is only a


small number concerned. Personally, I do not care whether there is one, 100 or 1,000. It is the task of this House to look after the interests of all sections, big or small, and to see that justice is done impartially. [Interruption.] If hon. Members say "The Big Boys," I think they will find that I am going to talk about meter men, fitters and others who could not be called big people, even by the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). It may be that to him a fitter is a big man, though I do not think that is so to the House as a whole.
We have now waited 18 months since the Bill became law to see these regulations, and even 10 months since the vesting date. The Government have said that they will be a model employer, and will produce something which will be a criterion to private enterprise. If ever a mountain travailed in labour to produce a lean mouse, that is the case tonight with these regulations. They will do nothing to improve the lot of an individual; in fact, they lessen the rights of the individual. I was very surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to the position which existed before, when private enterprise was in the field and was controlled by Statute as to what could be done. Perhaps I could refresh his memory as to their obligations:
Where any man for any reason in any of the following conditions felt he had suffered a loss, he had a right to compensation.
These conditions were:
The transfer of the whole or any part of an undertaking, the cessation of operations or change in the method of operations in the whole or part of an undertaking, the closing of a generating station, the imposition by the Central Electricity Board by or under a scheme of restrictions upon the working or use of a generating station, the acquisition of a generating station, the acquisition of main transmission lines or part thereof.
and so on. In fact, everything was covered, and that was the basis on which a man could claim.

Mr. Palmer: To which Act is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: To the Act of 1926, Section 15.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that that would cover the situation brought about on the

amalgamations under the 1926 Act, but that it would not cover the normal business amalgamations of utility companies.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As I understand it, it would, but I am perfectly prepared to hear any argument on that point. I have taken this list not from the Act but from the handbook called "Electricity Practice" which was issued for the guidance of all electricity companies. Therefore, I would say, subject to any correction, that all cases were covered, and that, in fact, any man could claim for any of these things, which actually covered his normal life. Not only that, but, if we look further, the amount of the compensation that is payable in any such case is at the discretion of the referee, who is not asked to consider whether a man has put in 30 hours or worked eight years or any of these other conditions which are put into these regulations. Under private enterprise the referee was given a completely free hand. He merely had to consider the loss, assess it, and then the company concerned would pay. But now we are asked to consider something else. We are asked to consider, not a model employer, but an employer who is deliberately whittling down not only the scope but the rights which a man may have.
In the first case, we are told that a man cannot have compensation unless he is 26 years of age. As I understand it, that is based on the parallel of the Transport Commission. What a weak reason to give. What is the justification for that? All the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is, "Somebody has sinned before me, and, therefore, you cannot accuse me of sinning if I carry out the same procedure." What is the magic in this age of 26? I suggest that if we adopt this procedure we shall be denying the very thing which compensation is designed to do, which is to protect the young man. Very often, a man of 26 may have married, and married because of the job he has got. He may possibly have children, and may have embarked upon buying his own house. He may even be buying his furniture by hire purchase. One thing which is absolutely certain is that a man of 26 in such circumstances will demand security, and he must have security if he is to lead a normal life and bring up his family in the proper way.
I should like to read a small portion of a document issued by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. In it they say, in regard to this particular position:
Normally, it will be the older man who will have difficulty in finding other work, and the regulations are, therefore, more sympathetic to his claims than to those of the younger man who may be expected to find alternative employment.
I can think of nothing more dangerous. Of course, I admire the Ministry in their desire to help the older man, but surely the real thing is to help the younger man, the man who finds his career terminated for one reason or another, and who has difficulty in finding alternative employment. It must be remembered that in a great number of technical occupations, the Ministry is now a monopoly employer. If it dismisses a man, he has no alternative employer to whom to go for a job. It is a great responsibility for the Minister, and he has to remember that if a young man engaged in a technical occupation, particularly in connection with the distribution of electricity, is dismissed, there is no other employer to whom he can go to get similar employment.

Mr. Scollan: There are two points with which I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to deal. The first is that, with the development of electricity supplies in this country, is it not very likely that all these young men will be found jobs connected with that development? Secondly, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether at any time in the whole of his Parliamentary career he has ever raised the question of the thousands of ordinary working men who were discharged from their employment without compensation, and with nothing but the dole?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I cannot answer the second question because I have been a Member of this House only since 1945, although I did say it, for instance, on the Gas Bill. With regard to his first point, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated my argument, because that was exactly the point I was going to make.
If I understand the Minister correctly, the Ministry have nothing to fear. In that case, for Heaven's sake admit them to compensation, because the Government cannot lose either way. If they are to

continue in the occupation, the Government pay nothing. If there is some odd case which slips through the net—and I stress that if it is one we are just as much concerned as if there were a thousand—let the Government pay. What is wrong in that?
I next come to the point that people must work for eight years? What is the magic of eight years? Where does the figure come from? On what is it based? I had no idea, and I must admit that the Parliamentary Secretary did not add to my knowledge. Again, I think he merely said it was based on the British Transport Commission's Regulations, or perhaps he did not base it on anything. We are in a complete fog as to where that figure has come from. Is it not very hard on all those who joined the industry during the war? What is to happen to those people? They are people who may have been directed, or they may have thought it was their part of National Service to join the electricity industry. They will now be thrown out and have absolutely nothing with which to start their future life. Where do they come in? Let me remind the hon. Gentleman again that the Ministry is a monopoly employer and for many of those people, who may have been directed into the industry in 1941 or at some date like that, there is no alternative employer to whom they can go if they are now dismissed. They are being left without anything with which they can build their future.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions about his definition of war service. Personally, I think it covers most of the eventualities, but I am not at all clear whether it covers whole-time service done prior to 3rd September, 1939. We must remember that a great many people were called up for Anti-Aircraft Command in the middle of August of that year. Does that service count under the regulations as at present drafted? I find it difficult to decide whether it does or not, and I should like the Minister to give us some information on that point.
The only definition of war service given in these regulations is hopelessly narrow by comparison with the British Transport Commission's regulations. Under those regulations a man who might have been interned, who might have been in enemy occupied country, was entitled to count that service in connection with any com-


pensation he might expect to receive. Under these electricity regulations the man who was interned, who might have been sent abroad by the electricity authority, say to Rumania or some other country and was subsequently interned, would not be able to count that service for anything. That seems to me to be wrong.
Above all, there is no freedom given to the Minister such as there is under sub-paragraph (vi), of the regulations of the British Transport Commission where:
Such other employment as the Minister may in writing approve
is considered to be war-time service. There is nothing of that in these regulations.

Mr. Robens: I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking of civilian technicians still in the employ of the company?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As I said, there is nothing in these regulations like there is in the British Transport regulations which say "such other employment as the Minister may in writing approve." There is nothing like that in these regulations which would enable the odd case to be dealt with.
Having dealt with those points, let us consider what are the exclusions which are made under these regulations, of people who may receive compensation. The first one—I think the major one—is that, whereas the joint and local authorities managed two-thirds of that industry, nobody may now claim compensation unless he can prove that he was wholly or mainly employed in the undertaking of that local authority. How on earth does the Minister expect that proof to be made? Let us consider, for example, a simple case, that of a clerk in the accounts branch of the local authority. That branch is probably dealing with rates, certainly with gas, certainly with electricity. How is any single person in that branch to prove he was wholly or mainly on one or the other? It cannot be done. What is happening is this, that as gas and electricity are taken away from the local authority, there will probably be considerable cuts in that department. The people employed in it, as these regulations are drafted at the moment, will have no claim—none whatever—

because none of them can say that he was wholly or mainly on this job. They were all occupied and some will be sacked, but there is no compensation.

Mr. Scollan: How can they be sacked if they are doing jobs?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Certainly if responsibility for this work is taken from the local authority the local authority will not need so many clerks. It is obvious. During the war years, particularly, there was great shortage of manpower, and the staffs of local authorities—as staffs elsewhere did—made every effort to "muck in," to divide the work amongst themselves as best they could. There was no question of one man's saying, "I want to work on gas," or of somebody else saying, "You will do nothing but electricity." Everybody buckled down to do all he could. The more the staff buckled down, the more they pooled their jobs, and tried to make the local authority administration run proficiently, the less now they will be able to prove their own cases under these regulations. That seems to be a most disastrous thing.
Again a man who has served a local authority for 30 years in electricity may be moved to another department three months before the vesting date. Perhaps, the rating officer calls him to help. Let us assume, for the sake of my case, that the rating officer's immediate assistant goes down with appendicitis. He needs somebody with long experience and good knowledge to do his assistant's job, and the head of the electricity accounts branch is transferred for six months to help carry the rating officer's department. Under the regulations, as they are framed at the moment, that man would not get a penny, despite the fact that he had spent 30 years serving the local authority. The very fact that he had been three months before the vesting date outside his own department would debar him from receiving any compensation at all. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he will tell me under what part of the regulations that man will get compensation, I shall withdraw my remark.

Mr. Robens: I was only shaking my head at the thought that a clever accountant, so smart as to be able to do two or three jobs, and to be transferred to another job, would be sacked.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am trying to make a serious case, and I am sorry the hon. Member has deliberately tried to make fun of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hope that hon. Members will listen, because this is an important point. Here we have the possibility that a man has been serving 30 years in one department of a local authority. It may well be—we all know it—that another department, because of illness, needs temporary help, and that the trained, tried, proved servant of 30 years' standing is moved temporarily from his department to the other. There is no harm in that; it is done every day; but under these regulations, if that man is moved I said for three months or for six months—but if he is moved even 24 hours before the vesting date he will lose every penny of compensation to which he is entitled. He may be moved for only three days, before the vesting day and two days after. He would still lose every penny of compensation to which he is entitled.

Mr. Robens: Not unless the local authority discharges him.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But that is
the whole point. That is the point I have been trying to make. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reinforced it for me. Let us look at the proviso to Regulation 1 which says that a person must have an average weekly aggregate of 30 hours or more before he can make claim to compensation, and, moreover, has to prove that during that period he was restricted from taking other employment in consideration of emoluments. Of all the fantastic provision that could be put in any Regulation, surely that must have first prize.
On the controversial point of directors, I will quote what the present Secretary of State for War said when he was Minister of Fuel and Power:
It appears to me that, if there are directors, as no doubt there are, of undertakings who occupy a fair part of their time—it may be four days a week or only two days—sitting on a board of directors and for some part of the rest of the week undertaking activities associated with a particular undertaking, they are included in the definition of officers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1947; c. 1421.]
When one takes that statement of the late Minister of Fuel and Power and considers it in relation to these regulations tonight, one can only say that the pre-

sent Minister has completely repudiated his predecessor and gone back on what was said then. I myself would say that from information available not only in the Standing Committee, but on the Third Reading and in another place, that it really is a tragic thing when undertakings are given, which are accepted, that they should be now absoluely repudiated when it comes to their implementation.
How can the secretary of a company or a meter fitter prove these conditions? How can he prove that he has served 30 hours a week on a particular job and that he has been restricted during that period from taking other emoluments? It seems to me that he can only do that on the assumption that all the records of individual engagements are kept in the minutes book of the company. Let us assume that that is so. I think that it is, because it is borne out by Regulation 15 (1), which says:
Any person claiming to be entitled to compensation shall give notice thereof to the Board as soon as may be after the date of loss; and shall furnish therewith full information, verified by a statutory declaration made by that person, as to the matters specified in the Schedule to these Regulations.
In other words, the onus of proof is on him. It is not for the Board to disprove it; but he has to prove it. He can only do that by having access to the minutes book and to all the other records of the company. Where are these records at the moment? They were passed over to the stockholders' representative; they may now be with the stockholders' representative; they may be with the Electricity Board, or still with the local authority. How has anyone the right to ask those authorities to produce the necessary evidence? It simply cannot be done.

Mr. Scollan: That is nonsense.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will tell me how it can be done, and how the small man is even to know where to start to look for the documents which will enable him to qualify under Regulation 15 (1) before he can claim his compensation.
Lastly, I come to the question of the £4,000 limit. I am told by the Parliamentary Secretary, as I understood it, that this £4,000 limit is something which applied under the Transport Commission


Regulations, and which he thinks are fair and reasonable. That is, I think, a fair summary of his argument. But on what is it based? As I understood it, simply because this is the maximum sum he thought a consumer should be called upon to pay in compensation. That seems to me a most extraordinary doctrine. What is the basis of compensation? It is for loss. If once it is said, "We shall assess the loss before we give the compensation," we might as well have no regulation for compensation at all, because the whole basis of compensation is destroyed.
During our Debates on the Gas Bill last year we discussed two members who had to be appointed to the Gas Board, who were receiving more than £4,000 a year before appointment, and the Minister of Fuel and Power said, during those Debates, that he would make up their pay to what they were receiving over the sum of £4,000. I think I am also right in saying that there are at present two members of the British Electricity Authority whose nominal salary is £4,000, but whose salary has been made up to what they had before, by what I believe the Minister is pleased to call "personal allowances." Therefore, there seems to be no magic in the sum of £4,000 when it comes to the boards of nationalised industries. Suppose any member of the National Coal Board in receipt of more than £4,000 a year—and there are a number—were sacked tomorrow, for one reason or another, in any of the circumstances envisaged under these regulations. Would he be content to have his emoluments cut down to £4,000 before receiving compensation? Would the Minister think that fair?

Mr. Robens: This is rather important. It is difficult for hon. Members on this side of the House to find out what the Conservative Party's policy is. Do I understand the policy the hon. and gallant Member is now putting forward on behalf of his party is that the compensation should be something greater than £2,666 a year?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Robens: For doing nothing?

Mr. Bracken: The Lord Chancellor gets £5,000.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I only want to raise the broad issue. If compensation is given, then that compensation is based upon loss; that loss is known, and to be fair the compensation must be based upon the known loss, whether it be £500 or £50,000.

Mr. John McKay: What does the miner get when he loses his job?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Let us stick to these regulations, if we may, for the moment. It is quite easy to introduce extraneous thoughts and arguments.
I put this to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope he will consider this example, which is very relevant to the argument I have just made. Consider the case of a senior executive, who is over 65 years of age, who for one cause or another—nationalisation, change of Government, integration, whatever you like—may be deprived of his office. As these regulations stand at the moment, the managing director, say, who is receiving £6,000 a year would receive, I think the Parliamentary Secretary said, £2,666 provided he was under the age of 65; but if he were over 65 he would receive only half that—£1,300.

Mr. Scollan: Give him the old age pension.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Any Member of, for instance, the National Coal Board who was in similar circumstances would now receive the sum of £1,300 instead of his emoluments. It is even worse for a man in the same position, who for some reason or another—assuming he had worked his way up from the bottom—maintained a pension policy, who at the age of 65 was receiving £6,000 a year: he would find that because of his pension of, say, £500 he would lose the whole of his right to compensation; he would get nothing at all. Instead of £6,000 a year he would be left with merely £500 a year.
Therefore I think it can be summed up in this way: that if it is the intention of the Government to start well with nationalisation the one thing they want to avoid is strewing the countryside with people who are disappointed, with people who have just cause to complain. What they have done is very much out of tune with what private enterprise has done before. I have fought nationalisation as fiercely as anyone——

Mr. McKay: What are the miners going to get?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: —but once an industry has been nationalised, then surely it is the essence of the duty of the Government to see that they start well and that they carry the whole of those in the industry with them? To produce regulations like these, which are mean, which deprive many people of rights they have enjoyed previously and which deny future rights to many people, do none of those things, and it is for that reason that I hope the regulations will not be passed tonight.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: There are, in my view, certain objections to some parts of these regulations, but I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has succeeded in finding them. For instance, he objected to the regulations because he said that existing trade union agreements were not carried out by them. He should know—because he served on the Standing Committee—that existing trade union agreements are covered in the Sections of the Act and all the trade union agreements in existence before vesting day have been carried over under the new order. As far as I know, no trade union in the industry has had any difficulty of any kind.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also made a completely false point when he quoted from what turned out to be the 1926 Act, because he seemed to think that the quite generous compensation provisions in that Act were something on which private enterprise deserved to be congratulated. But, of course, the 1926 Act set up a public statutory body and it dealt with any losses of employment brought about over a quite limited section of the industry, the wholesale side; hardships brought about because of the shutting down of generating stations. It had nothing whatever to do with that great part of the industry over which private enterprise operated.
I think the House will agree that I have some practical experience of the electricity supply industry. There have been numbers of amalgamations over the last 30 or 40 years between companies,

and these normal commercial amalgamations have sometimes resulted in the displacement of engineers and employees of every grade without a penny of compensation. In a company by which I was once employed, an engineer who had given long years of service was telephoned one morning quite early after the amalgamation, after another company had stepped in, and was told that his services were no longer required and that he could have one month's money, and he went——

Mr. Bracken: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he has made the gravest of accusations. An engineer—the House must listen to this—who had spent a long time in the employment of an electricity company was dismissed on the telephone one morning—this is the tale. Let us have his name and the name of the company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, it is quite important. I am asking the hon. Gentleman a question. It really is quite surprising. First of all, this gentleman would have recourse to law. Let the hon. Member be fair and tell us the name of the company which dismissed him.

Mr. Palmer: I am prepared to give the name, at my own time. I am not proposing to give it to the House tonight. I am saying that this kind of thing was not unknown. I do not suggest it was common practice. Some companies were extremely generous in these matters, but it was a question of private generosity. The point I am making is that the 1926 Act, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted, had nothing whatsoever to do with the normal commercial amalgamations of private enterprise.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman this question. Is there, under the terms which I read out—I tried to do so slowly—any specific case which he can mention which is not covered? And is the hon. Member willing to give the name of the man, or is he willing to give the name of the company concerned?

Mr. Palmer: I am not proposing to give——

Mr. Bracken: Then why mention it in the House?

Mr. Palmer: I am saying that the kind of case I mentioned——

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member is running away from it.

Mr. Palmer: —as a matter of normal commercial amalgamation, was not unknown in the electricity supply industry in days gone by.
The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch has put a question to me about the 1926 Act. That Act, of course, covered the setting up and operations of the Grid and any closing down of stations brought about by the operations of the Grid. It did not cover commercial amalgamations outside, by statutory undertakings. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also talked about there being just one monopoly employer at present and said that, therefore, if a man left the electricity supply industry it was impossible for him to find alternative employment. Let me point out, then, that in the electricity supply industry there are various grades. A fitter is a fitter, whether he works in electricity supply or electrical manufacturing. There is plenty of alternative employment as long as full employment is maintained generally in the country. The point is a false one.
I want to come now to one or two criticisms. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, quite rightly, that there had been consultations with trade unions and associations in the industry on the regulations. I have some personal knowledge of those consultations and I think it is right to say that the unions and associations concerned are grateful to the Minister for the opportunities he has given them to discuss the draft regulations with him. He will, however, appreciate that trade unions cannot negotiate on terms of equality with the Government. It would not be right that they should do so. Simply because there have been consultations, it would be wrong to say that the unions are absolutely satisfied with the regulations as they stand. Even if they were satisfied, that should not take away from the right and, indeed, the duty of Members of this House to look at these regulations extremely carefully.
The trade unions which have been consulted in this matter cover pretty well every grade of employee. They include

unions such as the Association of Managerial Electrical Executives and the Electrical Power Engineers Association, for the technical staff, the National Association of Local Government Officers and the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, for the clerical and administrative staffs, and, I think, five of the unions representing manual workers. The industry is fortunate in having such a representative committee.
It seems to me that one of the difficulties in regard to these regulations—and here perhaps I shall have some agreement from hon. Members opposite—is that they are modelled on a standard form set up for nationalised industries generally. I think that somewhat of a weakness, because they do not necessarily take into account the special conditions and peculiar circumstances of the electricity supply industry. One of the features of the industry is that it has always had a very close contact with the manufacturing side. There has been a constant flow of staff, especially technical staff, from the manufacturing companies to electricity undertakings. For example, an engineer, after many years contracting work for a manufacturing company on construction of power stations, when he is 40 or 45 may he taken into the employment of a supply undertaking. He may be taken into an extremely good position and he gets that position because of his vast experience on the manufacturing side. Suppose that five years after vesting day it is found that there is no work for him. He will get no compensation because he has not had the necessary number of years in the electricity supply industry. I suggest that the Minister might look at the regulations to see if it is possible for genuine experience in the electricity manufacturing industry as such, which has resulted in a man being brought into a position on the supply side of the industry, to count for some compensation should he later lose his employment as a result of vesting.
I do not very much like the provision for no compensation after 10 years. I think compensation should be payable at any time, provided the applicant can show that his loss of office or emoluments is a consequence of the Act. The suggestion that we should leave out of account altogether any diminution in emoluments under 5 per cent. is a rather


unfortunate feature of the regulations. I suppose this provision is intended to prevent a multiplicity of small claims, but a £30 loss on a salary of £600 is no laughing matter and I think the Minister might look into that. Unlike the coal industry, or the transport industry, payment in kind was not really a common feature of the industry, but, free electricity, or electricity at reduced rates for employees, is not unknown. Because of this provision it is possible for that concession to be taken from employees and they cannot claim any compensation. It may be that the trade unions would have something to say on it, but, nevertheless, it is an objection. Then the eight-year qualifying period is unreasonably long.

Mr. Scollan: What would my hon. Friend suggest?

Mr. Palmer: That is my view. I think it is unreasonably long and it could be shortened.

Mr. Scollan: What would my hon. Friend suggest?

Mr. Palmer: I am not against a qualifying period, but I suggest that this is unreasonably long and it might be shortened. It might be five years, or shorter.

Mr. Scollan: Eighteen months?

Mr. Bracken: That would not win the next Election.

Mr. Palmer: During the Committee stage certain undertakings were given by my right hon. Friend that directors with executive functions should be compensated. To enable this to be done a minimum of 30 hours full-time service is laid down as an essential requirement for the payment of compensation. The danger now is that some local authority or holding company staff may be excluded from receiving compensation precisely because of this provision. For example—[Interruption.] These matters are of some interest to those who work in the electricity supply industry. The average member of the staff of a local authority at present works about 38 hours a week. Thirty hours of that is a fairly good proportion; it represents nearly 80 per cent. of his time. It may be that the local authority employees may be transferred; they may go over to the new electricity boards, and yet in

the past they may not have spent the full 30 hours on the work of the old electricity undertaking. If found redundant later they may get no compensation.
I come to the provision which deals with the seeking of alternative employment. There is the provision, in Part 11, on page 4 of the regulations, in which the boards are asked to take into account when assessing compensation the extent to which the applicant "has sought alternative employment." I do not like that provision very much. The words have a certain ominous ring about them. There is also reference to—
emoluments which he … might have secured by accepting any suitable and reasonable employment … offered to him …
These phrases are extremely difficult to define.
Employment by another electricity board is apparently always regarded, from the way the regulations are drafted, as being suitable. Let us take the case, for instance, of a man of Kent or a man of Devon, a man in the Southern part of England, who is working in a small thermal power station, a steam station. Let us suppose that once we have overcome our present electricity difficulty that station is closed down and the staff are out of employment. The man to whom I am referring may be between 40 and 50 years old, and it may be discovered that there is no work for him in the South of England. Suppose it is suggested that there is work for him with the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board, which is a board under the definition of the Act. It is a considerable matter for that man to move his home in Kent, or wherever it may be, to take up employment with the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board, the alternative if he does not being that his compensation will be substantially reduced.
Those are the main points I wish to make. I agree with my hon. Friend that the electricity supply industry is an expanding one, and that we are fortunate in having in power a Government which is pursuing a policy of full employment. None the less, I should not be doing my proper duty to the electricity supply industry, or my duty as a Member of Parliament, if I did not mention the doubts which I feel about certain provisions in these regulations. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposites


will not suppose that I am proposing to vote with them if they decide to divide the House. That would be going much too far. I am very anxious that these regulations should be made and that they should come into effect fairly soon. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will pay some attention to the points which I have made, because I can assure him that they represent the doubts of a great number of employees in the industry, who, in general support the 1947 Act, and expect great things for the industry arising out of it.

Mr. Bracken: And the electors with them.

Mr. Scollan: I would like to ask my hon. Friend to clear up this point. He supported the Government in the regulations that enabled the Coal Board to close down uneconomical pits and transfer the miners to other coal fields without compensation. I would like to know how he reconciles that attitude with his demand for compensation for a man who lives in Kent who might have to go to the Hydro-Electricity scheme in Scotland.

Mr. Palmer: I do not think that my hon. Friend has made a point at all. I am proposing to support the Government on these regulations, but since I have some knowledge of the industry I think I am entitled to voice my objection to parts of them.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I thought I should find myself in violent disagreement with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) when he indulged in the usual sort of smear campaign against private enterprise in the past and then failed to produce the necessary evidence. However, my antipathy to him on that ground was somewhat lessened later on when he subjected the regulations to a critical analysis. I do not think that he came to a very logical conclusion when he said he would not vote against them, but I think he has put forward a number of points which, added to those of my hon. and gallant Friend, should make the right hon. Gentleman feel very uncomfortable about his regulations.
The first point we have to make is with regard to inordinate delay. I agree it would be a great pity if what is said to-

night should cause further delay. On the other hand, are we to let go through regulations which will not provide justice for the appropriate cases? There are no provisions in these regulations for discretion except on minor matters of procedure. All hon. Members know well the kind of reply which comes from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is no power to make such-and-such a payment because the Act or the regulation does not provide for them. Therefore, it is necessary in considering these regulations to make certain that they do cover the appropriate matters.
I wish first to deal with the grounds of entitlement under the regulations. Regulation 2 says:
Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this regulation, any of the following occurring to a person to whom regulation one applies shall be a ground of entitlement to compensation …."
and then it goes on to define those matters as:

"(a) loss of employment, with or without any loss or diminution of pension rights;
(b) loss, or, in the case of a person for the time being employed by an Electricity Board, diminution, of emoluments;
(c) the worsening of a person's position with respect to his conditions of service as a whole, as compared with his conditions before the date of loss as defined in paragraph (4)."

If we look at paragraph (4) that does not carry the matter very much further.
The Parliamentary Secretary repeatedly asked us to approve these regulations because they were modelled on the Transport Commission Regulations. If we look at the Transport Commission Regulations dealing with that matter, we find, in Regulation 2, that the events which are to entitle a man to compensation are (a) that his office or situation is abolished, and he is not offered by the Commission a reasonably comparable office or situation, or (b), having been required to perform duties such as are not analogous, or are an unreasonable addition, to those which previously he performed, then he relinquishes the office or situation. Then there are four other conditions concerned with the dispensing of service reduction of emoluments, etc. But the two matters I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary are those which I mentioned first.
A person who has not been offered a reasonably comparable job or has been


required to perform duties such as are not analogous or are an unreasonable addition to his previous duties, and has, therefore, relinquished his appointment, is entitled to compensation under the Transport Regulations. At least, that is as I read it. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he accepts that? Personally, I do not think that there is any doubt about it. Such a person is not covered by these regulations, although the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said, on the Report stage of the Bill, when an Amendment was moved from this side, that if, within five years of the vesting date, any existing officer relinquished his appointment on the grounds that his duties were an unreasonable addition to, or not comparable with, his former duties, he should be compensated.
The right hon. Gentleman, now the Secretary of State for War, then said that he could not accept the, Amendment in its existing form, although, in principle, he took no exception to what was there presented. There were, he said, exceptions, but the principal reason why he could not accept the Amendment was that he thought the provisions would he more appropriately dealt with by regulations. The right hon. Gentleman ended:—
So I agree, with certain modifications and adjustments which are appropriate to the particular circumstances of this industry, to provide Regulations which will cover substantially the proposals contained in the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 490.]
That undertaking has not been carried out in the regulations before us tonight.
If I may continue with the invitation of the Parliamentary Secretary to compare these regulations with those concerned with transport, the next matter to which I would refer is the definition, or, rather, the fact that there is no definition, of emoluments. This affects something which the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) also mentioned. In these regulations, in paragraph 6 (3), there is a reference to emoluments. It mentions the following matters:—
In the determination of the emoluments received by any person in respect of employment—

(a) the amount of any fees or other variable payments included …
(b) the money value of any accommodation …

(c) there shall be excluded any sum paid to that person in respect of—

(i) expenses incurred by him in the course of his employment;
(ii) overtime not being a sum paid as a regular increment to his wages or salary."

That is as near as we get in these regulations to a definition of emoluments. What I want to know is why, if the Transport Commission Regulations are the model for these regulations, we have departed from the more satisfactory and complete definition of emoluments in those regulations. "Emoluments" are there stated to mean, and I am reading from paragraph 2 of the Transport Regulations:
All salary, wages, fees including directors' fees, and payments of a similar nature, paid or made to an officer or servant as such for his own use; all bonuses, allowances, commissions, gratuities, special duty and overtime pay that are of a recurrent (whether seasonal or otherwise) nature; and the money value of all travel privileges, free accommodation, and any other allowances in kind, privileges or benefits, whether obtained legally or by customary practice. It excludes all payments for travelling, subsistence, accommodation, engagement of assistance and other expenses incurred in the course of employment, and all overtime and other payments that do not reflect a permanent state of affairs.
I do not want to worry the House by going at great length into that definition, but I submit that it is a much more satisfactory definition than the rather vague and loose words contained in the regulations which we are now considering. Also under paragraph 6, my hon. and gallant Friend referred to the question of the £4,000 limit. I was present the other day at a meeting of the Standing Committee at which one hon. Member moved that the maximum salary payable to any member of the Iron and Steel Corporation should be £5,000.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): It is out of Order to refer to what is going on in a Standing Committee which has not yet reported to the House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was only going to make a passing reference. I think that I would be in Order in putting the argument in this way, that it seems to me highly illogical for a Government, the members of which refuse to fix limits for the remuneration of members of public corporations, and refuse any sug-


gested limit on the ground that they must pay the rate for the job, and must pay these high salaries whatever they may be, whether £7,000 or £8,000, to come along to fix a limit to compensation. It seems to me the depth of meanness for people to use that argument when it comes to a question of compensation and not to keep to the same criterion of the rate for the job.
I do not think I need add anything to what has been said by other hon. Members on the question of 30 hours. It seems extremely difficult in logic for the Minister to defend that limitation. I also agree with hon. Members who have spoken already on the question of the phrase "wholly or mainly." I reinforce the point of the hon. Member for Wimbledon about the limit of 10 years. I think it is clear, under these regulations, that if a man becomes redundant after a certain period of time, he gets no compensation. It seems to me that that might be the cause of injustice.
Perhaps I might deal with some rather similar points of detail on these regulations, starting at Regulation 9 which deals with residual compensation. Sub-paragraph (3) states:
For the purposes of the payments afore-said—

(a) the said person shall pay to the Board a sum equal to the amount of any return of contributions made to him under the said scheme, or the compensation shall be reduced by an amount the capital value whereof is equal to the said sum."

Who decides that? Is it a matter for either party to decide, or can it be decided only by the Board or the Minister, or by whom? Continuing with the same sub-paragraph, there is a reference to
actual length of service completed by that person.
What is the difference between "actual length" and
"length of service "? Subparagraph (3) (b) reads:
The amount of pension or benefit to he satisfied shall be determined in relation to any person as if every condition had been fulfilled qualifying him to receive such a pension or such benefit, but (where relevant, and subject to any customary addition) by reference to the actual length of the service completed by that person before the date of loss.
Then paragraph 4 reads:
If a person to whom paragraph 2 applies had at the date of loss attained the age of 45 years, an assessment of compensation may require the Board to ensure that a sum is paid

by way of addition to his pension and benefit, as if for an added year of service, in respect of each completed year of service, whether before or after the vesting date, after attaining the age of 45.
Why should that only be permissible? Why should it not be peremptory? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to attempt to explain to the House the meaning of the two provisoes at the top of page 8, because I have studied them and failed to decide what they mean. I think there is a great obscurity about them.
Then there is paragraph 10 (3), dealing with the assessment of compensation and discharge of the onus of proof, which reads:
(3) Where any person alleges that he has lost his employment in consequence of the vesting, transfer or disposal, as the case may be, of any property, rights, liabilities or obligations, he shall (unless the contrary be proved) be deemed to have lost his employment accordingly if, before the expiry of ten years from the vesting date, being a person employed in any capacity mentioned in paragraph (2) of regulation one connected with the property. rights, liabilities or obligations, he loses his said employment on any ground other than his own request (including acceptance of membership of an Electricity Board) or the attainment by him of retiring age, or his own misconduct or incapacity to perform any duty which he was, or reasonably might have been. required to perform in the course of the said employment.
It appears to me that a man is going to be deprived of his rights of compensation for failing to do something which he was never asked to do. That seems to me a little odd, to say the least of it.
Paragraph 12, which is the regulation which the Parliamentary Secretary referred to with some degree of satisfaction, deals with the right of appeal from the decision of the Board. In it there is a reference to a re-hearing. I imagine that there can only be a re-hearing when there is a preliminary hearing. Where is the preliminary hearing provided for? If we go further and look at later provisions with regard to the hearing of claims by the Board, and the dealing with claims by the Board, there is no provision at all. as far as I can see, for a man to be heard, or to bring his representatives, or in any way to put his case before the Board in the normal manner.
Then we come to paragraph 15—procedure on claims. It is there stated that:
Any person claiming to be entitled to compensation shall give notice thereof to the


Board as soon as may be after the date of loss; and shall furnish therewith full information, verified by a statutory declaration made by that person, as to the matters in the Schedule to these Regulations.
If any hon. Members have taken the trouble to look at the matters specified in the schedule, they will have seen that they cast an enormously onerous burden of proof upon the individual applicant. There are many matters which the individual man would not be able, in fact, to produce to the Board without a very high degree of collaboration from the Board, because many of the documents would be in the custody of the Board itself. Therefore, I should have thought that paragraph 15 should have included some qualifying phrase such as—" so far as a man is able." If the Minister will give some undertaking regarding the interpretation of this provision, he will give satisfaction on that point.
Then we come to paragraph 16, dealing with extension of time. It seems quite wrong that only the Minister should be able to extend the time. I should have thought that either the Board or the tribunal ought to have the right to extend the time. It is gross over-centralisation to allow only the Minister to do that. Paragraph 17 describes the method whereby the Board deals with claims. I should have thought that there should be a provision entitling a man to have a representative with him, or to be represented by someone else if he is not there, to enable his claim to be put properly. These are serious points, or may be serious points, for the people who have to apply for compensation.
Paragraph 18 deals with interpretation, and gives certain definitions. I agree that the definitions of pensions, pension rights, and pension schemes are fairly wide, but I do not believe that they include any discretionary cases. They do not include the class of case where, within the discretion of the Board, a man might be expected to receive a gratuity or pension of some sort. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) wish to say something?

Mr. Tiffany: I was referring to the definition relating to any person who has a pension, whether of a contributory or any other kind whatsoever.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My point was rather different. If the hon. Gentleman will consult with a certain colleague of his, he will find that that matter is worthy of reconsideration. The only other matter on the definitions is that of war service. If we look at the Transport Commission Regulations again—and this really is a matter which may affect many individuals—war service means:
(i) Service in any of His Majesty's forces; (ii) any employment in the merchant navy or fishing fleets; (iii) any full-time employment in the Civil Defence Services (including the National Fire Service), the Royal Observer Corps, the Police War Reserve, the Nursing and First Aid Services, and the Women's Land Army; (iv) any full-time employment into which the officer or servant entered by direction of the Minister of Labour and National Service"—
the right hon. Gentleman will notice the alteration in sub-paragraph (f) of these regulations, which are more restricted and—
(v) detention by the enemy as a prisoner, military or civil, in any enemy or enemy-occupied country, or internment in any enemy or enemy-occupied or neutral country in consequence of that war;"—
and, this is very important—
(vi) Such other employment as the Minister may in writing approve.
If hon. Members will look at the definitions in the regulations before the House, it must be obvious that they are very much narrower.
I suggest that, on all these grounds of principle and detail that regulations can be riddled. They are unsound in many respects, and in detail are thoroughly bad. They should be taken away and looked at again—and looked at quickly.

10.50 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: It is rather unfortunate that we should have to discuss a matter of this importance to a great many people in the way that the bringing in for approval of a Statutory Instrument entails. I think it should be done, as ordinary legislation is gone through, by putting down Amendments. We have tonight tried to raise as many points as possible more or less in amendment form, but it is a difficult thing to do, and I expect it will be a very difficult thing for the Minister to give satisfactory answers on all the points we have raised. We come back to the point we made time and time again when we were considering the Bill in this House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss the Act under which the regulations have been issued. They have been issued in accordance with legislation which this House has approved and passed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot refer to the Act.

Colonel Clarke: I think it is a pity that the regulations were not a part of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss the Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament. He should confine his remarks to the regulations now before the House for approval.

Colonel Clarke: May I next refer to a point that has been raised before, that is, the delay that has taken place in the presentation of these regulations. That delay may be further lengthened if, as I hope, amending regulations are brought in. I believe that they are absolutely necessary. As has been said, it is 11 months since the vesting day, but there has been increasing alarm and despondency among many of those affected at there being no answer given to their questions as to what is going to happen to them financially. It has not been for lack of pressing. There have been at least three Questions asked in this House, and there have been Questions in another place as well.
I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary was a little over-hopeful when he said he thought these regulations would serve as a model. In the way in which they have been presented, and the time it has taken, they are no model at all. He was also a little over-hopeful in saying that they would not be necessary, and that no one was likely to be redundant in this nationalised industry, in spite of the fact that much of the idea of nationalisation was to save manpower. I would remind him that in one nationalised industry—civil aviation—over 5,000 men were dismissed a few weeks ago from B.O.A.C. I hope it will not happen in this industry. I do not think we have any right to legislate on the principle that no one will be dismissed.
I should like also to ask what answers were received from those organisations of employees who were consulted with regard to these regulations. I understand

those answers were not all favourable. I think the modern definition of consultation between the Government and organisations of employees, or even any other organisation for that matter, is rather of a dictatorial kind, consisting of asking the body what they want, and, whether they agree or not, telling them what to do.
I do not believe that the British Electricity Authority are responsible for all the mistakes and omissions in these regu lations. I believe that the principles have been determined in the Ministry, and that it would have been much better if more had been left to the British Electricity Authority, and less had been settled over their heads in the Ministry. I think the British Electricity Authority have much more knowledge of the conditions of those they are taking over, and could have done this thing much better.
I should like to raise three specific points which have not yet been touched upon. In paragraph 6 (7) the limitation period in which anyone can claim against the Electricity Board is two years. But the Act gives a special limitation of three years for all other types of claimant against the Electricity Board, and I believe it would only be fair that the employees of the Board should also he allowed three years.
The second point arises under paragraph 6 (d), to part of the regulation which deals with the offer of employment in a place other than the place where a man was employed immediately before the vesting day, or the date of the loss, as it is described. That will not provide a ground for a man to refuse the alternative employment, for if he does so he will be liable to forfeit compensation. That seems exceedingly hard. I think it was the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) who mentioned the case of a man who was offered employment with a hydro-electricity company in Scotland and who at the time was living in the South of England. I do not know the details of that case, but I have heard of similar cases of men with young children at school, perhaps of a man with a delicate wife who does not want to leave the neighbourhood in which she is living and the doctors upon whom she has been relying for a long time. It may cause great hardship if such a man has to move from one end


of England to the other, or from England to Scotland.
However, I know that it is a thing which to a certain extent is inevitable in nationalised industries, and it will be one of the great disadvantages for the employees of nationalised industries. In the past a man went into a county electricity company and could more or less rely, if he were good, ambitious and hard working, on being promoted eventually to a managerial or sub-managerial position in that company. That has all gone. In the future, if a man wants promotion, he will have to go where he is told to go. That will be found more and more to be a great disadvantage to the employees in these nationalised industries. They do not realise it yet, but they will realise it. A great many of them will have to give up promotion in order to remain near where their children are at school, or to remain where they are for the good of their family.
The last point I want to make is about paragraph 17 (2). I should like to suggest that after the word "such," in line 2, there should be inserted the words "time, date and." It appears to me that if we insist that the place where a man is to go is reasonable, the time and the date should also be reasonable. As the regulation stands at present, I read it to say that a man might comply with it if he turned up at the right place on the wrong day. That does not seem to make sense. I suggest that the drafting of that part of the regulation should be reconsidered.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I think there are three reasons why the amount of the compensation payable under these regulations is expected, or may be expected, to be on the small side. In the first place, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, the absorption of the people into the industry by the central staff, the regional staff, and the undertaking will be of a high order. There is, therefore, great expectation that anybody can be employed in alternative employment. Secondly, the Minister made the point, quite rightly, that in a period of high and stable employment there are alternative vocations outside the electricity industry also open to these people.
I do not think the third point has yet been made. I think it is a worthwhile

point. It is that the electricity industry is a fine industry with a fine history. There are a lot of good men in it at all levels. We can rely on it that if they are in such a position that their service has to be terminated they rightly will seek to employ themselves. They are not the type of people who batten on the community. For that further good reason we are saying that the amounts likely to be required under this regulation may be expected to be small.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) made a very reasoned point, and it has been also made by hon. Members on this side, that the Government are rightly saying that they wish to be generous and not skinflint and pinching over this matter. It works both ways. If the expectation is to be light there is all the more reason why they should be generous. But as the hon. Member for Wimbledon has pointed out, they have not approached it in a generous spirit. Both the hon. Member for Wimbledon and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) indicated that there are points of detail in which these regulations are bad, as welt as in the whole point of policy and approach.
A number of details were mentioned, and I would like the Minister to consider one. Regulation 13, paragraph (3) states:
Compensation shall not be assignable.
I think also that that compensation ought not to be alienable. That is to say that no employee of an electricity undertaking should be presented with the alternative of accepting, shall we say, a rise of five shillings only on condition that he agrees to surrender his rights of compensation under Section 55 of the Act. It may well happen, and in many cases the public may say that it ought to happen, that anybody running the undertaking ought to take every opportunity to get his people to contract themselves out from the protection which this House is trying to give them. It may be that the Minister can give us an undertaking on this point. I think it is a very valid point. If anyone offers a rise of salary to an employee, the undertaking can at that stage say: "I am offering you this. You can take it if you like, but if you take it you will have to surrender your rights of compen-


sation for the next 10 years under the Act."
To pass in this House regulations which make such an, immoral bargain possible is wholly wrong. For that reason, as well as other reasons which have been advanced, and on the grounds that it is an ungenerous Act and full of blemishes, I ask the Minister to withdraw these regulations now and present them again in a more perfect form at a later stage.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I feel very strongly on one point which has been brought out during this Debate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me about it. I refer to the statutory obligations under Section 16 of the 1919 Act and Section 25 of the 1926 Act. Whether they were wider or narrower than the present regulations does not make any difference. There were those statutory regulations to certain employees.
An Amendment was moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) which I seconded. The words of my hon. and gallant Friend were that it was a straightforward and simple Amendment which was a simplified substitute for the provisions in the existing law. As a result of our bringing that Amendment forward, the then Minister of Fuel and Power gave an undertaking. We have built up a great tradition of equity and justice in Parliament. I feel tonight, from the interjections that have come from the other side, that there seems to be some whittling down of that equity and justice. It is intolerable to me that injustice should be regarded as wrong when there are a large number of people affected, but right when there are only one or two. That is against all our principles. It is wrong that injustice should be looked up on as wrong for a poor employee, but as right for a rich one. If there is injustice at all, it does not matter whether there is only one person concerned, and he a rich one, it is wrong. Unless the Minister can assure the House that there will not be injustice, I shall go with confidence into the Lobby against him. If it goes out from the House that we are tolerating injustice, even to one or two

people, it means that we are beginning to go down the slippery slope that leads to totalitarianism.

11.7 p.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: It is with some hesitation and diffidence that I intervene in the discussion of these regulations. There can be few hon. Members who are unaware that for the greater part of my life I have been associated with electricity supply undertakings. Therefore, I may have some interest in the outcome of these proceedings. I want to look at the matter from the point of view of a former employer of a great many people in the industry, whose subsequent welfare—now that they have become employees of the area boards—it is the duty of their former employers to safeguard. as far as may be necessary and right.
It seems to me that some of the conditions attached to qualifications for pension or compensation are very restricted and unreasonable. To deal, for example, with the question of the 30 hours; what may be included in the 30 hours work a week? Has that to be done in an office? Is one to be precluded from including the amount of work one does in a train or sitting in an hotel? If that is so, how many hon. Members are there who would deny that they would be entitled to say that after they leave this House their work is not finished? They write, and study Bills, on their journeys in the train; during the week-end they may spend a great many hours on the work they may be called on to do here on Bills some days later.
So it is in industry. A man's work does not finish when he leaves the office. There are a great many who cannot get on unless they take work home with them, and spend many hours on it. I speak from considerable experience. I work 12 to 13 hours a day, seven days a week. I have no time to idle on Saturdays and Sundays, and seldom put my papers down till after midnight. I am not alone in that respect. There are many, Ministers of the Crown among them, who have to work very long hours, and it is very absurd to have a limitation of 30 hours; it is quite indefinite unless one makes it perfectly clear how the time is spent. If it is spent in the train, or in an hotel where one happens to be staying, that ought to count as part of the 30 hours of work. I doubt


if any hon. Member on the other side will disagree with that argument.
May I ask the House to look at the factors affecting compensation? On page 4 of the Regulations, section 6, it is laid down that a man has to seek alternative employment, and it is stated that regard shall be paid to:
the extent to which he has sought alternative employment; and whether he has been registered for employment at an employment exchange, or with the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
We had a statement earlier from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) that he thought the Parliamentary Secretary was a little optimistic when he said everybody would be absorbed and few men would be thrown out of their jobs because industry was going to expand—as one expects it will. But, in this connection, it might interest the House to hear that during the past week, one of my former employees came to me and said he had been dismissed by an area board. He could not be found employment, and he asked if I could help him; his age is 65. Now, has that man to register at an employment exchange, and seek other employment in accordance with the instructions at the end of this long paper? He has to give particulars of the efforts he has made to obtain employment, to explain whether any offer of employment has been made, the terms of the offer, and the grounds on which he rejected it. That, surely, is an undignified position.
Is it reasonable that a man should be expected to undergo this sort of thing? There may be cases where it is reasonable, but there is a very large number in which it would be an insult for an experienced man to be cross-questioned in this way. If this particular man of 65 years were to go to a prospective employer, and if during the interview he said what his age was, he would be old. "Oh, we're afraid you are too old." This man was one of the best men we had in my group of companies, and was responsible for managing an electricity supply undertaking. I should be only too glad if I could find work for him in one of my manufacturing concerns; but his knowledge is not in that direction. It is in supplying consumers with electricity, and on the distributing side. His qualifications do not enable me to find him a job

in a manufacturing concern. I would gladly do it, if possible, and I have made inquiries of my managers to see if he can be placed; they know what an excellent man he is, and say they would like to fit him in, but it is a matter of extreme difficulty.
There is one other point, mentioned by the hon. Member for Wimbledon who, like myself, has spent many years in the industry; the advantage lost by some people if they lose a privilege which, in the past has been enjoyed by them—having electricity supplied to their homes on especially low terms. Why did we do that in many cases? Because we wanted to encourage the men managing our undertakings to make the greatest possible use of electricity-consuming devices so that they could speak from first-hand experience of handling such devices in their own homes. In that way we encouraged them to electrify their homes to the greatest extent. That is an advantage. It is like free coal to the miners, or coal on special terms for the miners, whatever the terms may be, to which they rightly attach importance. Men who have been accustomed to having electricity at very low prices will find it a very serious matter, in these hard times, if they have to take other employment in which they will not enjoy that particular advantage.
I am not going to say anything about the possible terms, the emoluments, which might arise under the Bill. I do not think it would be proper or appropriate for me to do that. But I do say to the Minister that I know he desires to be fair and just, if not generous, in these terms. I do not know whom he has consulted about these regulations. If he had thought fit to ask me, after 50 years of experience in the industry, to go along and have a look at them. I should have been very glad to consider them as carefully as I could, and to have given him the best advice which I could. But I do say that these regulations are causing a great deal of heartburning as they are at present drafted.
If it is his desire that the British Electricity Authority and the area boards shall have a contented body of work-people, then provisions with regard to their future must be made which are just and fair, if not generous. There are some conditions hedged about here to which I think exception can be taken,


and on very reasonable grounds. Therefore, I do appeal to the Minister not to force the issue tonight, but to take back these regulations. Let us have further consultation. If he will meet us on points which we consider we can, in all reasonableness, press, I feel sure it will redound to his credit. I make that appeal to him.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Bracken: I spoke so long last night that I am as bored by the sound of my own voice as hon. Members opposite. Nevertheless, the call of duty cannot be neglected. I must say to the Parliamentary Secretary, that I have great regard for him. We have sat opposite each other on many Committees—to our mutual disadvantage, because we have paid slight tribute to each other. I know he desires to do justice. But he was doing justice neither to the people in the industry nor to himself tonight, when he opened this Debate. He struck me as being casual, unsure of the moral grounds on which he based his case—and certainly I cannot blame him for that, because, of course, there are no moral grounds. So he fell back on a civil servant, of all people—a former civil servant. I do not know what his status is now. I think he is Deputy-Chairman of the British Electricity Authority—Sir Henry Self. He fell back on him to justify these regulations, which was a very remarkable performance, if I may say so. When I asked where this declaration that was going to comfort the dispossessed—whether they are humble workers or working directors—was made, he said it was at a lunch or dinner, or at any rate on a social occasion.

Mr. Robens: I think I can put that matter right. It was not at a lunch, it was not at a dinner; perhaps it was a social occasion. It was at a lecture in the London School of Economics.

Mr. Bracken: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has withdrawn his statement that it was made at a lunch or a dinner or on a social occasion. Certainly the London School of Economics cannot be fitted into any of those categories. However, I do think it very strange that Government policy should be defined on the basis of a speech made even in the London School of Economics, which has had the advantage, I am told,—I hope I am not incorrect—

in the past, of an opportunity of being lectured by the Minister. I may be incorrect, but it certainly is a foster father in politics, for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has played a large part in that strange institution. I protest that it is wrong for a Minister of the Crown to get up and refer us to a lecture at the London School of Economics, or, as he put it originally, some social occasion.
I feel strongly that the maximum recognised salary of £4,000 a year is quite silly when one considers the policy of the Government at the present time in deciding or fixing salaries. The Chairman of the British Electricity Authority is paid a salary—I hope I am right—of £7,500 a year. If the Minister really believes that £5,000 should be the recognised salary, why give Lord Citrine £7,500 a year?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bowles): May I ask whether Lord Citrine's salary comes under these regulations or not? If it does not, it is irrelevant——Order, order.

Mr. Bracken: I am very glad. I apologise when I am called to Order. I am not exactly trained on the parade ground and I could scarcely sit down——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has surely been in the House long enough to know that when the Chairman rises, he should resume his seat.

Mr. Bracken: Let me assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I was making the most rapid attempt to resume my seat. If I was not fast enough I apologise. The salary of Lord Citrine must come under these regulations, because we have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary that they will be interpreted by him with great justice not to say generosity. If he is in a position to interpret these regulations with great justice and generosity, I presume that he is in some way connected with these regulations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Lord Citrine is not covered by these regulations.

Mr. Bracken: I should have thought that mention of his salary in passing was illustrative, at any rate, of the point we are trying to make that the maximum salary is unreasonable. In the past in


this House people better qualified as speakers than I, like the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) or the Prime Minister, have been allowed occasionally to make illustrative remarks. If it is out of Order now, I shall forget Lord Citrine and forget his salary, too. Nor will I even ask if he has any pension rights. I make this appeal to the Minister. He has listened to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary, who told us that these regulations were based on the Transport Act arrangements. I do not know whether he was in Order in saying that, because I would like to follow up the point. If it is true that the regulations are copied from the Transport regulations, then the Government are doing a serious injustice to those employed in the electrical industry in not faithfully carrying through those regulations.
In reply to an interruption by me, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he could not explain to me or to the House why there was such flexibility in the Transport Act and that regulations under it and the regulations which we are discussing. I reminded him that the Government, which controls the London Transport Authority, agreed that a member of the London Transport Authority should be appointed to the Transport Commission at a very large salary. I told the Parliamentary Secretary that the member of the London Transport Authority was paid a large sum by way of compensation for loss of office when he joined the Transport Commission. I said that that showed that Ministers have the right to show some generosity to people affected under various nationalisation Acts. If the Minister will accept that as a precedent, as I hope he will, I do not think that he should be as lavish as his colleague, the Minister of Transport. I feel that he has certain discretionary powers in relation to these regulations. I had hoped that he would reply to the many speeches from this side of the House and would agree to ask the House to postpone consideration of these regulations, and bring them forward in, say, a month's time—after he has had an opportunity of reconsidering them.
My hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for New Forest and Christchurch

(Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) rightly complained about the procrastination which has surrounded these regulations—a wait of a year and a half. Is that fair to people whose livelihood is dependent on electricity? I do not think that any hon. Member opposite would think it fair to keep men, who have to live on such income as they earn by hard work, waiting for one and a half years to know what are their pension rights under these regulations.
I notice that the Home Secretary is gazing at me somewhat distastefully. He is quite right in doing so: I was about to remark that one of the slogans of the party opposite is, "Labour gets things done." I wish that Labour could have got things done, say, about a year ago, and I complain strongly about that procrastination which the Government have shown in dealing with this matter. So far as I can discover, the only thing to do after this long period of meditation by the Minister is to find referees to judge between the victims of these regulations and the Minister—referees who are willing to be put in the stocks.
I was greatly impressed with the legal acumen of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). He has shown quite clearly that the Government have clearly weighed the dice against the unfortunate persons who are affected by these regulations.

Mr. M. Follick: "Weighted"—not "weighed."

Mr. Bracken: The authority on spelling whose opportunity is coming on Friday next really ought not to anticipate his speech. Such an opulent Socialist should not butt in and spoil a great chance that lies before him on Friday. He might easily lose a possible, a very possible supporter.

Mr. Follick: I must not lose that. I must be wrong.

Mr. Bracken: I think it is very unfair to a comrade to prejudge that issue.
Hon. Members must have heard with some astonishment that these regulations contain the phrase "a 30-hour week test." It is very hard to estimate how a director, who has many duties to perform—[interruption.] I am glad of the risibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite because it is


hard work. Most directors take a bag of work home—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like that metaphor, but I actually took it from the mouth of the Attorney-General when he was recently giving an interview about the responsibilities of his office. It is quite right that directors do take their work home.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "They never do any."]—I do not mind jeers, but in fact, most directors of important companies ought to take their duties seriously, and most of them really do. They have to consider their business almost every day of the week, and sometimes when things are difficult, at night. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) will recognise that fact: certainly it is recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even by the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Fernyhough: I was only thinking of those directors who hold directorships of 20, 30, and 40 companies. They must have a terrible lot of work to take home.

Mr. Bracken: Unfortunately they have. There is an hon. Gentleman sitting opposite, representing a northern constituency, and one of the most respected Members of this House, who is chairman of a number of committees and was the chairman of the Gas Committee upstairs. He has to work overtime, and is a director of many companies. It is a mistake to believe that because a man holds a lot of directorships, he takes his duties without seriousness. Most directors work very hard, but I do not like this red herring to be drawn across my path. I want to get on with this 30-hour test. I consider that it is thoroughly unfair. It is impossible to assess the work done by a dutiful director, or even by a dutiful Minister. If a check were kept on the hours' spent by Ministers in their offices they sometimes might fall below the 30-hour week standard. Even the right hon. Gentleman opposite might fail, and I know how hard he works at night, and so do directors.
Now the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) told us a story, and I do really think he ought to provide us with the missing clue. He said that a long-serving and experienced engineer working in an electricity company was sacked without notice. He said he

was rung up on the telephone and dismissed. To an ignorant House of Commons which had not the advantage of the presence of the Attorney-General, it would be clear that this man had suffered a terrible misfortune, but even the most experienced engineer cannot be dismissed by a wicked director merely because he lifts up the telephone and tells him to go. All conditions of employment are determined by one law or another or by one agreement or another. I thought that story was introduced to prejudice, and to prejudice in what We might call a class warfare way, the regulations we have been discussing tonight, and again I make an appeal—

Mr. Palmer: I did not suggest that the man in question was dismissed illegally. I did not suggest that for one moment. My point was that he was dismissed without compensation, and I was also trying to make the point that that kind of case was not covered by the 1926 Act, as the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel CrosthwaiteEyre) seemed to suggest.

Mr. Bracken: Like most authors of fiction, the hon. Member for Wimbledon forgot the embroidery which surrounded his statement. He said this gentleman was rung up on the telephone by a brutal director—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the adjective seems to hurt hon. Members opposite. They consider that it is not brutal to ring up a man on the telephone and tell him to get out. I consider it brutal, even if they do not.
This illustration was the main basis of the arguments of the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I feel that he ought to tell the House what was the name of the company, because it would affect the Minister's judgment if the story were accurate. The company must now be in the charge of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. It has been wound up. No harm will be done to anyone by the hon. Member disclosing the name of this company containing such brutal employers. I am more than willing to sit down if the hon. Member will give us that name. I think it is a pity that an hon. Member should come to this House and give us a case in great detail of brutality shown by electricity companies in the past and, when invited to produce proof, should sit silent. He is silent because he cannot prove his facts.

Mr. Palmer: I have very good reasons—and the right hon. Gentleman must accept those reasons—for not wishing to give the name.

Mr. Bracken: This is a most extraordinary statement. The hon. Member says he has good reasons, but the Minister knows perfectly well that the electricity companies are now under his control and that no harm could possibly be done to anybody by the hon. Member giving the name of the company which perpetrated this brutality.

Mr. Carmichael: What would be the advantage at this time of night in giving the name?

Mr. Bracken: If the hon. Member, who has been so recent a convert from the late Mr. Maxton's party, wants to interrupt, he should rise.

Mr. Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman is not now worried about the time and neither am I. All I want to know is, what advantage would it be to the right hon. Gentleman, in his rambling speech, if he got the information regarding somebody who was dismissed by a company that is now dead?

Mr. Bracken: It was brought forward as an illustration to sustain the Government's case for bringing forward these regulations.

Mr. Tiffany: No.

Mr. Bracken: If the hon. Member will forgive me, it is necessary for me to make a rambling speech, in view of this Debate, just as it was necessary for the hon. Gentleman to become a rambling politician. [Interruption.] There is interference from Hammersmith?

Mr. Pritt: Is there any greater or more cowardly ramble than the ramble from Paddington to Bournemouth?

Mr. Bracken: I must say that it was not a ramble. It was a case of getting the boot good and proper, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will get it at the next Election.

Mr. Pritt: Was your journey really necessary?

Mr. Bracken: I should have thought that a fellow-traveller should write more

letters to Paris. You see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how difficult it is for a man anxious to make a moderate speech who is being constantly baited by hon. Members opposite, who seem to have no desire to go to their couches. I have done my best to extract the evidence on which the hon. Member for Wimbledon based his speech. He would not give it to us. I daresay that in good time the people of Wimbledon will take some notice of that fact.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral made a devastating speech. I was sorry that no Law Officer was present. The Minister of Fuel and Power is a very hard-working man, and it is very difficult to follow these intricate legal points. I am unable to follow most of them. My hon. and learned Friend made an accusation of a dishonoured promise, which must be answered. If the Minister is convinced by what my hon. Friend said he will fulfil the promise made by a Government Department. So long as he remains in the Government, I feel perfectly certain that he and his colleagues would not consciously dishonour a promise. I ask him to consider carefully what was said to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral.
Looking at the regulations, with all their cramping and mean clauses, may I ask the Minister if all the contracts of service entered into by the British Electricity Authority, or even the Coal Board, are modelled on these regulations? Because this is a point of high importance. In our judgment, old servants of the electricity industry are treated very badly under these regulations. Now let us know if the new servants of the industry are subject to the same limitations imposed by these regulations. That is a perfectly fair question and I hope that the Minister will answer it, more particularly in relation to the point about pensions.
I do not suppose that there is anyone in the British Electricity Association who is paid more than the statutory limit of £4,000 a year. It would indeed be shocking if there were. And what a position the Minister would be in if anyone could prove that there were people paid more than the statutory limit. But he will reassure us on this point I feel fairly sure—the accent is on the "fairly". The people affected by these regulations are very worthy people who have worked their way upwards in life, like most of the hon.


Members of this House. They feel that after long and faithful service they are being skinned. If I may use a milder word, they feel that they are being bilked. I appeal to the Minister to do justice by these people.
I have had a fairly extensive experience of the Minister, which he does not at all enjoy, but I have learned one or two things about him which I wish to mention. I think that he has a sense of justice. I think that he has no sense of urgency, and most Ministers I have known also suffer from that limitation. But above all I think that he understands the hardships of particular professional classes in this country and the skilled artisan over a certain age. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) gave the House an illustration of what happens to a man over the age of 60 or 65 who tries to find another job. If any hon. Member of this House, having exceeded the age of 65, were to go into the labour market at the present time does he really believe that he could get a job? It would be very hard indeed.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Yes, with British European Airways.

Mr. Bracken: I do not think I should be stimulated to take any party point on this matter. I am anxious to deal with it on a broader basis. Does anyone really believe that a man over 65 could get a job? We are constantly being told by Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, that what we want is more work out of our people, and that it is highly desirable that people over the age of 60 should be encouraged to take work. But they are completely discouraged under these regulations, and the Minister knows it. That is not done to most of the people who serve the State.
I do not know whether it is in Order or not to mention this—you are the best person to rule on this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—but in fact if anyone were appointed Speaker of this House and held the post for a few days, he would be entitled to a pension of £4,000 a year, and quite right, too. I have known ex-Speakers, both Liberal and Conservative, in receipt of that pension who have done other work, and

very useful work indeed, at comparatively small fees. There was one of the greatest Speakers of this House who went on pension and then proceeded to serve the State greatly for years to come.
I do feel that it is very unfair to include in these regulations something which debars a man who has worked hard in the electricity industry, whereas we consciously pay pensions to thousands of persons in this country, without putting any limitations on what they do after they receive their pensions. If a man has earned a pension, let him have it; what he does afterwards is nobody's business, and if he has the good sense to help the country by working, we ought to praise him and not do as the Minister says, and take away his pension. It is a very wicked thing, and it will shake to the core any sense of permanency which the Lord Chancellor may have. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The hon. Gentleman asks me "Why?"; because he is paid £5,000 a year pension if he holds the position of Lord Chancellor for one day.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, he has imposed the same limit as is set forth in these regulations on those who will retire from the British European Airways, or the National Coal Board, or any other board under Government jurisdiction. I know that last night he delivered himself of a speech which can only be described as a capital levy—an extension of the "once for all" levy introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has every right to do that. He was speaking to undergraduates, but now he is talking to the House of Commons; and whatever he wishes to do to the so-called millionaires—and, believe me, in a short time they will be in shorter supply than Loch Ness monsters—I do not think he wishes to do an injustice to hard working directors or employees of electricity companies who have not put in a recognised 30 hours of work. It is impossible to determine the quality or quantity of a man's work merely by clocking him in; I have always felt that very strongly. Few politicians in this State would stand the test of 30 hours' hard work every week; and I do not call "hard work" listening to speeches by a person like myself.
I do think, to be serious, that the Minister has acted justly by the gas in-


dustry, and I think that he is doing his best to do justice by the coal industry. I do not think, when we come to electricity, that these regulations were drawn up by himself; they were probably lying around in the office when he got there. When I was a Minister I found I had to deal with stuff left by worthy servants of the State—people who had not had the same contact with the public as we brutalised politicians who have to stand for election before the public. I do ask the Minister to look at these regulations again. There is no tremendous hurry—[Interruption]—well, there can be no great hurry. He has allowed one and a half years to go round without producing them, as my hon. Friends have pointed out.
I do suggest that he should take them away and think about them in a quiet way. Let him bring them forward a week later, and then he will understand the truth of the criticisms made on this side of the House, and he will also want to pay some tribute of respect to his hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon who, hitherto, had followed him with malignant fidelity.

11.55 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): It is a remarkable fact that when the National Health Service Compensation Regulations were being discussed, when the National Insurance Compensation Regulations were being discussed and when the Transport Compensation Regulations were being discussed, the Opposition took not the slightest interest, and the whole of the proceedings were brief, the regulations being approved almost without debate. Yet tonight, in the case of these regulations, we have been listening to animated speeches. The last speech was slow, I thought, compared with some I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman. There was not much sense of urgency about his speech tonight. But we have been listening to passionate appeals to my sweet reasonableness on behalf of the workers in the electricity industry. What is the reason for this? Is it that the workers in this industry have some magic quality which entitles them to more attention than the workers in the Health Service, or in insurance or transport? Or can it be merely that the right hon. Gentleman is with us again and his circus with him?

Mr. Bracken: I am sorry to interrupt what is a hopefully humorous speech, but these regulations are very different from those to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Gaitskell: In all matters of essential principle they are the same. If indeed we had listened to a series of speeches from the right hon. Gentleman and hon Members opposite pointing out exactly what the differences were, and asking why we did not follow the original regulations, that would be a different matter. Only one hon. Member, I concede, did take the Transport Regulations and go through them. That was the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I shall deal with the points which he raised. All of them were of minor importance, and none of them dealt with essential points of principle.
What are the points of principle in the regulations? The qualifying period. Do hon. Members suggest that there should be no qualifying period for the payment of compensation? Certainly not. There must be a qualifying period for payment of compensation. It is a matter for discussion with the unions concerned, and has been discussed with them. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Government started out with the idea that a qualifying period of 10 years would be appropriate. In fact, the unions said that they thought that was an unnecessarily long period. I am being frank. Finally we compromised on eight years. It seems a reasonable period. What reason would there be for picking out the workers in this industry and giving them a shorter period of qualification than anyone else? If we did that, and the Opposition did not criticise us for it, they would be failing in their duty.

Mr. P. Roberts: Will the Minister refer to the statutory compensation figures which appear in the Acts of 1919 and 1936?

Mr. Gaitskell: We must approach these problems from a common basis. There are certain provisions in the Transport and Electricity Regulations. Later on we shall have to introduce similar regulations for the gas industry. I do not say that every single sentence of the regulations should be the same; there might be good reasons for differences in


drafting, as there are; but on the essential points of principle it would be difficult for the Government to have different principles
Another point of principle is the length of time which can be allowed to elapse after the loss sustained before application has to be made. It is a period of two years. That seems reasonable; I do not think that has been criticised. Again it is a common feature of the regulations for the other industries as well. Take the method of calculating substantive compensation. Again it is the same, and again if it were different we should be open to criticism. Take the highly controversial point about the £4,000 a year limit. The same limit was fixed in the Transport Regulations, so the Government take their stand on that limit. We do not think it right that there should be payment of compensation on the basis of salary above that level. The right hon. Gentleman keeps on confusing two different things—compensation which an individual may be entitled to under these regulations and any rights he may have as a result of breach of contract. If he has a contract, he is entitled under that contract to go to the Board and say, "Either you honour the contract, or pay me compensation." But we are not touching that point. We are concerned with cases where, for one reason or another, a man is not fully protected by his contract. We have provided that there should not be double compensation, and I am sure I carry my hon. Friends behind me in that.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Where there is this case under contract, and compensation outside these regulations is payable, is it not a fact that that compensation has to be taken off any other compensation he may receive?

Mr. Gaitskell: The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about people receiving over £4,000 a year do not bear investigation, because they do not cover this point. We thought it would be quite wrong to pay compensation twice for the same thing—call it compensation or not in the other case, as you wish. The fact is that the British Electricity Authority, or an area board, if it did not in fact employ an individual with a contract, would have to compensate him, and he could take them to court if they

did not. These regulations are primarily to deal with people who are not protected in that way and they are to that extent more a method of dealing with hardship than with rights as expressed under retained contracts.
Another thing about which I really must correct the right hon. Gentleman is this. He kept comparing the maximum for compensation purposes under these regulations with the actual salaries paid to members of boards. Of course, it is a completely different thing. In one case you are fixing a limit to the amount of money payable to someone for doing nothing and in the other case to someone for doing a full-time job. It may be relevant for the right hon. Gentleman to say "Look at the enormous salaries paid in the industry beforehand —£20,000 a year."

Mr. Bracken: I suppose the £7,500 paid to Lord Citrine was a transfer fee from the Coal Board, where he was intransigent, to the British Electricity Authority, of which he knows nothing?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is the salary of the Chairman of the British Electricity Authority. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to say that he thinks it is a very excessive salary, will he explain how the Conservative administration in prewar days paid £12,500 as a salary for Lord Ashfield as Chairman of the London Passenger Transport Board—and at a time when the value of money was greater than it is now?

Mr. Bracken: I think it is a mistake to drag in the name of the late Lord Ashfield, but as I have been asked a question, I say that a Socialist Government gave him far greater compensation than any Conservative Government could have given him, when they transferred him from the London Passenger Transport Board to the Transport Commission.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman evades the issue completely. I am content to leave it at that because it is a side issue. What are the other major principles which we are applying in these regulations? We are saying that you should take into account whether or not a man has got alternative employment; that you should take into account when he is employed by the Electricity Board whether he is receiving more or less


than he was before. We take the view that is a reasonable thing to do because we cannot approach this problem in the reckless and irresponsible manner of hon. Members opposite, who have little hope of becoming members of a Government for a long time to come. Because of that, they are quite content to put forward these reckless and completely irresponsible points of view, knowing that there is not the slightest danger of anyone ever asking them to carry them out. We can leave it there—with them having their little fantasies and carrying on in that way.
I am even accused of breaking a pledge which the Secretary of State for War gave during the passage of the Bill through the House. I must at once declare that that is not so. Nothing has been quoted from what my right hon. Friend said which indicates that in his opinion large sums should be paid in compensation to part-time directors, whether executive or not. On the contrary, I could quote, if there were time, passages from statements he made during the passage of the Bill which made it perfectly plain that he identified executive directors with full-time directors. There is not the slightest doubt that at that time the opposition took that view. I am not criticising them for it, but make the statement so as to be absolutely fair in this matter.
We have, in fact, gone a long way towards enabling compensation to be paid to executive directors—even if, so far as their executive directorships are concerned, they are far from being in full-time employment. Some would not regard 30 hours as being a very heavy week's work. Nevertheless, we are enabling executive directors to aggregate, for the purpose of calculating the 30 hours, the whole time spent whether as executive directors or ordinary directors. They cannot claim compensation under the Act as ordinary directors but we say: "We will let you count the period of time spent as ordinary directors in the total amount." That is what was implied in my right hon. Friend's statement. That is the interpretation of it.

Mr. P. Roberts: Under the old regulations an employee had a protection which was much wider than that which he is getting now. The pledge was that the protection should be carried into the

regulations. That protection has not been carried through.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) does not seem to be talking about the same point as I am—the compensation of directors and the explanation of the period of 30 hours. There is nothing in the regulations to say that the 30 hours shall be spent in an office. It is for the individual concerned to make his case to the British Electricity Authority, and if he is not satisfied with the compensation he can appeal to the tribunal.
I was asked also about the position of those employed by local authorities. I will be perfectly frank. We do not concede it as any part of our duties to make provision for compensating part-time employees. I must be quite clear about it. This has not been provided in any other of the regulations. We do not think that it would be right. We say with regard to those employed by local authorities, partly on electricity and partly on other matters, that if in fact the greater part of the time has been spent on electricity, well and good, we take the responsibility and they are covered, but if, on the other hand, most of their time is spent on other business, the local authority should take care of them. That seems a reasonable and sensible point of view.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) and others referred to the provisions by which the applicant could be required at least to try to find some other employment, and I think he particularly objected to the possibility that a man might be offered a job in the North of Scotland whereas he lived in the South-West of England. It is possible that he might be offered such a job, but if he did not think it reasonable he could object, and if agreement could not be reached with the Authority the whole matter would go before the tribunal for them to decide. All that is provided here is that the tribunal may not say it is unreasonable merely because he has to change his position, his employer or place of work. We should surely agree with that. If he were sent from one side of London to the other surely that would not be unreasonable. It is not for me to interpret the regulations, still less to give advice on what the tribunal should do, but in the extreme sort of case mentioned obviously


I should have thought the man would have a pretty reasonable case.

Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman is laying down pretty severe commandments about part-time employees. One of the most distinguished of his colleagues opposite has spent a good deal of his life in the trade union movement and politics. He is now in receipt of a good pension from the trade union. He has fully earned it, but surely they did not take into account the fact that he was in politics, and whether or not he was working a 30-hour week?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are talking about men displaced by a particular Measure. He is comparing that with a man earning his pension in the ordinary way and then going into politics. There is no reason to draw that comparison.

Mr. Bracken: But he was always doing both.

Mr. Gaitskell: If the trade union is prepared to pay him a pension, there can be no objection.

Mr. Bracken: That is the point.

Mr. Gaitskell: That is where the matter rests. I was asked a number of questions by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I do not think myself that they raise very difficult legal points, and I hope to be able to satisfy him, at any rate, that the provisions in the regulations are reasonable. He asked me, for instance, the meaning of the word "actual" in paragraph 9 (3, b). Let us assume that a man has not had an opportunity of fulfilling all the conditions for a particular pension. We say, in the main, "We will assume you have done so and so far as pension is concerned, residual compensation will be based upon the actual length of service completed." That is the reason for the words.
He asked me why we had the word "may" in the following paragraph instead of the word "shall". Why, he asked, should the Board only be permitted to add additional years service to the compensation instead of being forced to do so? For the reason I have already given, we think the Board should be

entitled, where it is not a question of pension rights but is really an ex gratia payment, to add additional years of service if they think necessary. We say they may do that if they think it will otherwise cause a hardship. In contrast with hon. Members opposite, we want to do something for the older men. I noticed that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) seemed very much opposed to that view. Does he want to take away that particular provision? I take it that he does not. In that case there must be discrimination between the older and younger men. If, for instance, a man aged 45 goes and gets another job at a perfectly reasonable salary, to give him added years of service gratuitously would be quite unnecessary. Therefore, we think the provison should be permissive and not mandatory.
The hon. and learned Member then asked about the interpretation of the two provisos. I am sorry if I weary the House with this, but I have been accused of not knowing what the regulations are, so perhaps I should explain that I do know what they are. The proviso at the top of page 8, at any rate, is clear enough; it is a proviso which lays down that the number of additonal years service which may be added shall not exceed ten or the difference in time between the date of the loss and the man's retiring age. In other words, if a man were aged 58 and the retiring age were 60, you would give him an extra two years benefit—the difference between the date on which he was, in fact, forced to give up the job and the date on which he would have given it up anyhow. That seems reasonable enough. One could hardly suggest that in a case where a man lost the job at 58 instead of carrying on to 60 he should get 10 years added service.
In the case of the second proviso, very much the same point arose in connection with the case for which we specifically provided under the previous regulation, that if a man on substantive compensation becomes ill he may claim residual compensation—that is, in effect, a pension—if it is bigger than the compensation he is already getting; in other words, to help him out. I do not think there can be anything wrong in these two cases.
The hon. and learned Member also asked me a lot of questions about the way


in which the Board would do these things and suggested that we should put into the regulations just how they should hear the various individuals concerned. We do not think that is necessary. I can assure the House that the Board will handle these things in a perfectly reasonable way. If there were no appeal there might be a case, I agree, for laying down rather stringent and exact conditions which would have to be observed. But there is an appeal—an appeal to the tribunal. My hon. Friend has already explained to the House exactly how the tribunal will work. The House can be assured that the interests of the applicants will be fully protected in that way.
Finally, the hon. and learned Member spoke about the definition of pension. He said that he thought that a customary gratuity would not be covered. With great respect, I beg to differ. If he turns to the definition of pension he will see that it "includes a gratuity so payable." If he turns to the definition of pension rights he will see that it refers to a pension "under any customary practice." It is fairly obvious, since gratuities" is covered by the word "pension" and "pension rights" covers "under any customary practice," that if the customary practice is to pay a gratuity then obviously it will be covered by the regulations.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My whole point was to try to cover the case where it was not the customary practice.

Mr. Gaitskell: If it is not the customary practice, I cannot see that there is any case. I really do not understand the hon. and learned Member. We cannot just give away money, even if the Opposition are always wanting us to do so. I have covered most of the points that were raised——

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to deal with the first point I put, the question of entitlement. The regulations are definitely

much narrower than the Transport Regulations. It was in that connection that I read out the pledge made by the Secretary of State for War. In my view, there has been a definite breach.

Mr. Gaitskell: I can only say that I differ in my interpretation of that part of the regulations. We must adopt a balanced and sensible attitude in this matter. We cannot approach these problems in an irresponsible manner. We have to have regard to the rights of individuals, and some regard to hardship; but equally we have to bear in mind the interests of the consumers; they also have a stake which has to be looked after. We say that, taking it all in all, these regulations are fair. They follow a pretty well defined pattern, which the Government have laid down in a number of different cases. The unions and associations have been consulted. I do not say they are satisfied with every detail, but broadly speaking they are satisfied. They want them brought into effect, and I hope the House will pass them tonight.

Mr. Bracken: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct an inaccuracy, which affects a former Member of this House who was translated to another place, a man who rendered great service to transport in London and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman said Lord Ash-field was paid £20,000 a year by the Government. He would agree that he was entirely worth it.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not discussing that. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that some people on nationalised boards are worth high salaries.

Question put,
That the Draft Electricity (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 58.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)


Albu, A. H.
Bing, G. H. C.
Corlett, Dr. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Cullen, Mrs. A


Alien, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Deer, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, James
Diamond, J.


Baoon, Miss A.
Champion, A. J.
Dobbie, W.


Balfour, A.
Coldrick, W.
Dodds, N. N.


Barton, C.
Collins, V. J.
Dumpleton, C. W.




Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lang, G.
Scollan, T


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lavers, S.
Segal, Dr. S.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sharp, Granville


Fairhurst, F.
Logan, D. G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Farthing, W. J.
Lyne, A. W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Fernyhough, E.
MoKay, J. (Walisend)
Simmons, C. J.


Forman, J. C.
McKinlay, A. S.
Skeffington, A M.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Snow, J. W.


Gibbins, J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank 


Gibson, C. W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Swingler, S


Gilzean, A.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grierson, E.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Gunter, R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)


Guy. W. H.
Nally, W.
Tiffany, S.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Oldfield, W. H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Warbey, W N


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, A. M. F.
Watkins, T E 


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Peart, T. F.
Weitzman, D.


Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hobson, C. R.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Holman, P.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. Philips
Wilkes, L.


Hoy, J.
Pritt, D. N.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Randall, H. E.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Janner, B.
Ranger, J.
Willis, E.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Rankin, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rhodes, H.
Woods, G. S 


Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Robens, A.
Yates, V F


Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Konyon, C.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.


Barlow, Sir J.
Gridley, Sir A
Orr-Ewing, I L


Beamish, Maj. T V. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig, C. H. M 


Bennett, Sir P
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A V
Pitman, I J


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut -Col Rt. Hon. Sir C
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price-White, Lt -Col D.


Braithwaite, Lt -Comdr. J. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Robinson, Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Hurd, A.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Spence, H. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Lancaster, Col. C G
Thorp,[...] Brigadier R. A. F.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Crowder, Capt John E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
York, C.


Digby, S. W
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Young, Sir A S L (Partick)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.



Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Mr. Studholme and


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Colonel Wheatley.


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MAINTENANCE ORDERS (ENFORCEMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

12.30 a.m.

Mrs. Middleton: I apologise for keeping the House at a late hour, for the second night in succession, and I should not have done so tonight were it not for the fact that I plead in the interests of a large number of women who suffer under great handicap. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the enforcement of court maintenance orders. I recently had on the Order Paper a Question to the Home Secretary

asking whether he could provide information of the number of cases where arrears of maintenance orders had gone on for three months. As my right hon. Friend said that the information was not available, I have endeavoured to make some rough calculations of my own.

I have obtained figures of cases more than two months in arrear from two typical cities—the first my own city of Plymouth, and the other Leeds. The clerk to the justices in Plymouth notifies me that, on Saturday last, there were 176 such orders more than two months in arrear; that is, one for every 1,126 of the population of Plymouth. In Leeds, I understand that on the same day the num-


ber of orders in arrear for two months or more was 871, or one to every 554 of the population. Perhaps the reason the incidence in Leeds is nearly double that in Plymouth is that, first, Plymouth is smaller and the population is better known to one another and, secondly, that many Plymouth men, it being a town closely conected with the Forces and particularly the Royal Navy, if there is a maintenance order against them, have the amount deducted from their pay at source. But—and I hesitate to say it in your presence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—it may be that Plymouth is more law-abiding.

The average for the two cities is that there is one person unable to get the money due to her in every 660 people of the population and, if these two cities can be regarded as typical of the whole country, they would indicate that there must be in this country, more than 70,000 women who have obtained maintenance orders and who, on Saturday last, had been without income from that source for two months or more. I am not putting these figures forward as firm statistics, but as a yardstick by which we can to some extent measure the size of the problem with which I am endeavouring to deal tonight.

The figures which I have given, whether in their specific relation to the two cities concerned or in their general application to the country as a whole, take no account of the cases where summonses cannot be served because the husband has disappeared and cannot be traced. One thing which I ask is that Government Departments should give more help in tracing their husbands to women who have been deserted. This might be done through the system of national registration, through the system of National Insurance, or through the records at employment exchanges. I think we have the machinery by which this help could be given, and I plead that the help be given to these unfortunate women to the fullest extent.

I have never taken the view that where a marriage breaks down, the husband is always and inevitably in the wrong. Nor, as a very happily married woman myself, have I assumed, as some women seem to assume, that the failure is due to some fault on the part of the wife. I think it probably works out at about fifty-fifty,

with incompatibility of temperament playing some part between otherwise very estimable people. But I would remind the House that when a marriage breaks down the woman inexorably bears the greater part of the suffering. In the majority of cases she has already sacrificed her career for marriage, and she often finds it impossible to return to her trade or profession. Very often she has dependent children in her care, so that it would be impossible for her to return to her trade or profession even if that course, were open to her. She also has no claim, in such circumstances, even to the savings which she might have made in her housekeeping during the period of her marriage.

Some of the saddest cases that have come to my notice are those of women in the fifties or sixties who have had what seems to have been a reasonably happy married life and then, as they have got on in years, have found themselves deserted, shall I say, for a bit of fluff and glamour? There are women who find their children's education interfered with; and this may be the case even when a maintenance order is being observed. I had one such case sent to me from the city of Leeds, and I should like to give the House a few particulars about it. The woman had a child of sixteen years of age who was very clever at school. He had won a scholarship. The wife asked that maintenance should continue for the child, so as to enable the child to go forward with his education, but the magistrate ruled that the child was old enough to work and should do so.

Then there are grown-up children who are being expected to help to maintain the mother who has been deserted. I have before me another case, which this time comes from Rochdale. A woman who was nearly 60, with a husband who was earning £8 a week and who had been ordered to pay her only 8s. a week, had married children, and the magistrate ruled that the married children should provide support for her. That is the kind of case of which I have had innumerable instances since I first became interested in this subject. The only remedy open to the wife—and it is not redress at all, I suggest—is, finally, a prosecution. If the prosecution results in a sentence of imprisonment, that sentence wipes out all the arrears of maintenance, and consequently the woman is no better


off as a result. This is, I suggest, no help to the woman at all.

I have one very pathetic case set out in a letter written by a woman at Stockton-on-Tees who has four children, 6, 9, 11 and 13 years of age, under her care. Her husband has served one term of imprisonment in Winson Green—which, I believe, is at Birmingham—and at the present time is £195 in arrears with the sums that he has been ordered by the court to pay. What happens to such a woman when the man does not meet his obligations? I find that it is usually one of three things. Either the woman becomes a burden on her parents—and I have had letters from parents telling me of the hardship imposed on them because their daughter has been deserted—or she becomes a burden on her grown-up children—I have already quoted one instance of that sort and could quote many more—or more often she becomes a burden upon the State. I ask the House and my hon. Friend who is to reply why the general body of taxpayers who, if they are married, are meeting their marital obligations, should bear also the financial responsibilities of those men who have deserted their wives and are quite often living in comparative luxury?

I am told that in Scotland the position is that finally a maintenance order can be made a charge on the husband's wages. That is also done in Canada and France. It may be that that will finally be the only remedy that can be found in this country for this very difficult problem. But my purpose in raising this matter here tonight, is to ask my hon. Friend and the Government Department in which he serves to give all the help possible to women who are in this desperate position, and for the Departments of State that can make a contribution towards the tracing of husbands or providing information as to their whereabouts, to do so. In short, I ask that everything possible should be done to ease the very arduous burden and the very great suffering which some 70,000 women in our country are bearing at the present time.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Wilkes: It is quite obvious and is widely recognised, that great hardship is caused to thousands of families by reason of certain gaps which would appear still to

exist in the enforcement of maintenance orders. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to say why a husband who has a maintenance order made against him should not be required to give to the court by which the maintenance order is made his change of address, so that the court shall at least have some means of tracing him. Great hardship is caused by men leaving the district in which the court from which the order was issued is situated. For example, if a man goes from London to Newcastle, there is no obligation on his part to keep the court informed. There are many thousands of men who are deliberately evading their domestic responsibilites by roaming round the country. If some instruction or advice were given that men ought to keep the court concerned informed of their whereabouts, it might provide some answer to the problem. This is a practical suggestion which does not require any legislation, and I hope my hon. Friend will consider it carefully and try to give an affirmative answer.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: I reinforce what has been said by the two hon. Members who have spoken. As I understand the position at present, unless a warrant has been issued there is no obligation on the police or on anyone else to find a man, and the wife has to find him by private enterprise, so to speak. When a warrant has been issued, it is the duty of the police to trace the man. I think I am right in saying that in 100 per cent. of the cases which have come to my notice, the police have not succeeded in fulfilling the duty, which gives a suspicion that they are a little lukewarm about it.

12.46 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): My hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) made, I think, an unanswerable case from the point of view of the hardship which is known to result from maintenance orders which cannot be enforced. I do not think anyone disputes the fact that there are a large number of orders which are not enforced and which it is very difficult for the women themselves to do anything about. In a large number of cases serious hardship results. I have no


overall figures to give the House about the numbers of persons involved, but my hon. Friend gave local samples and I have no reason to dispute either those samples or to counter any suggestion that they may, on the whole, be typical of the general figures for the country. The questions that arise are, first, what is being done about that matter, and secondly, what more can be done. We are in a rather difficult position on many aspects of the second question because the majority of steps that can be taken, at any rate in theory, to increase the number of orders enforced would require legislation and would therefore be out of Order in this Debate.
I will deal with the first question—what are we doing? That principally involves inquiries by the police. The police do a very great deal in this matter. They give very considerable assistance to people in tracing missing husbands where there has been a warrant. I should make it plain that it would be impossible for the police to accept this as an obligation of the same kind as other obligations to trace criminals. In practice, that would not, I think, be a thing that they could possibly undertake, and I am not authorised to say that my right hon. Friend would indicate to the police that they should make inquiries on that scale or in that manner. If one takes a thing like the circulation of descriptions of missing criminals or wanted men in the Police Gazette, and so on, I do not think that that procedure can reasonably be applied to this form of case.
It is increasingly difficult for my right hon. Friend at the present moment to suggest that any very substantial addition in respect of this matter should be put on the police. They have their primary duties of detecting, repressing and preventing crime, and generally keeping law and order. What they do in fact do—and I think they do it with considerable skill—is to assist the woman whose husband has moved from the address he originally was at, and where the woman can suggest where he might be, they do check up, even in distant parts of the country. They have inquiries made and that does lead to a considerable train of inquiries. They go to one address and find he has gone; they manage to get an indication of where he might have gone, and they chase him

on again. But it is rather a different matter when there is no clue whatever. Where that happens with a criminal very considerable efforts indeed are very often required in order to trace him, and I do not think we could undertake inquiries on that scale.
The question was raised of facilities being given by other Departments. That is a thing upon which it is rather difficult for me to say anything precise. As regards, for instance, the Registrar-General, it is, I think, within the memory of those who were here before the war when the National Registration Act was passed, that the House was somewhat anxious about the different uses to which the information supplied under that Act might be put, and it was made an offence to reveal any information obtained under that Act except for certain purposes. It was undoubtedly the intention of the House that information should not be revealed from that source unless it was for the purpose of criminal proceedings, or for matters of similar importance.
This is not a question which is at all within the control of my right hon. Friend, but I think it would be recognised—and this is true of other Departments as well—that the Departments do receive the information which comes into their hands for a quite specific purpose concerning those Departments, and this House, in many Bills which have been before it where provision has been made for the obtaining of information, has always insisted that the information should be used only for that purpose and not others. An outstanding example is the question of Income Tax and taxation generally, and information obtained for that purpose. That is a matter which has to be approached with a great deal of caution. However, with all these difficulties I think it right to emphasise that there is a great deal done.
The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) suggested that in his experience the assistance sought was almost always unsuccessful. In those cases, perhaps, help has been enlisted where there is really no clue, and short of circulation of information in the Police Gazette it would be extremely difficult to trace them. This may account for a large proportion of the cases in the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience. From my information,


however, the general record of success of the police is nothing like as poor as that, and they do a great deal.
There is not much more that I can say to deal with the points made by the hon. Lady without going into the sphere of legislation. Such matters as deductions from wages, I am told, is entirely ruled out by certain Statutes, and it could be done only if there were legislation to make it possible. I think it is also true that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Wilkes) would require legislation. Even apart from that difficulty, I doubt how far it would be effective because, in the case we are talking about, the man is already under an obligation as a result of court proceedings, and the trouble is that he has ignored that obligation and has vanished. If, in fact, he is found he can be brought back and in the last resort the penalty of the courts is very much the same as it would be if we imposed upon him new obligations of this kind. Presumably the sort of man who evades this particular court order would also evade any other obligation about changing his address, and he would not thereby incur any additional penalty, other than those to which he is liable at present.

Mr. Wilkes: In the vast majority of cases the obligation is not to the court but merely to the wife. If the court had power to make another obligation, to

record the man's address, it might be more of a deterrent.

Mr. Younger: That is possible; it might be so, but it is a matter for argument. In any event, it would require legislation, and therefore I do not think I can go further into the point tonight. I can assure hon. Members that if my right hon. Friend thought there was anything further that he could do at the present time without legislation and without putting an altogether intolerable and disproportionate burden on the police, he would certainly do so. He would certainly wish the police to be as helpful as they could, consistent with their other duties, and I may say that, from what I have heard, they are helpful.
I am sorry not to be able to give any more comfort to my hon. Friend because we realise that this is a real problem. Perhaps the final comment I might make is that this is not the only type of court order which it is very difficult to enforce and which also causes extreme hardship. I think that if we contemplated any substantial change in the methods of enforcement for this particular type of order, we should find it very hard to distinguish, in principle, from the many others, and therefore we should find ourselves greatly increasing the complication of the machinery and the burden upon the public service.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to One o'Clock.